Flames of War 4.0 Rule Review 

The tank clumping makes my head want to explode whenever i see it. I understand they do it to keep the required space down but i think it looks real dumb.

It's been said that the great thing about Flames of War version 3 was that it had a rule for everything, but the bad thing was that it had a rule for everything. Version 4 is so much more streamlined, fun and playable, and the Hit The Beach starter set is by far the best value starter set for any game, bar none. Excellent review of a great game, thanks!

Would love to see LittleWarsTV do a game of Crossfire

I played FoW once but found it that the game was very unrealistic because it is set up for tournaments. I found so many unrealistic unit builds that players created to win a game. Not for historical gamers

Great reaction and review. They became a historical miniatures company modeled after GW. Originally they were more historically oriented in version 1 rules. They fired tons of local people. Saying the new factory in south east asia would lower prices, they instead raised prices. They got rid of the forum because the fans called them on every broken promise. I worked for them as a freelance proofreader on the 2nd Edition and on some of the 2nd Ed. scenario and theater books. My name is in the credits on the books I worked on. Hard back and Soft Cover. Phil writes some very elegant and simple rules systems. He was always fun to work with. Management above Phil on the other hand was a different story. Flames of War is the beer and pretzels of WW2 miniatures designed to play on a kitchen table. Phil once told me its the Hollywood Movie version of a battle. None of the dry tedium, all of the action. There is no scale in this game for a reason. The measurements for movement and shooting and the area effects are based on movement and initiative. Meaning attempting to get historical results when opposing weapon systems meet and maneuver against each other. How would a Sherman do vs an 88 in the open. How many turns does the Sherman have to face German Fire until it can fire back. How does infantry do vs a tank. How do they assault it. Etc. The movements and ranges were such that you should get a mostly historical and predictable result. But the game has dice so its a crap shoot. :) Thanks for sharing the review. I doubt I will buy 4th edition since I am now disabled and just cannot play anymore. But we played many, many large historical battles. Some with as many as 20 tables. DDay, Anzio, Palermo, Encirclement of Kiev, Breakout from Stalingrad. So many more. It was a very fun time. The person that drove the historical games was a man named Terry Leaf. Amazing historian and vet. We found that the way to build a gaming group was to be at the store every weekend and have games going and just be willing to share information about the game. Do painting workshops, do terrain workshops. Show how to play the game. The simple things. Show how to get a cheap force. Don't be paint snobs, bare metal works until they get them painted. Anything to play the hobby forward. We had older players, younger players, both sexes and lots and lots of different backgrounds and cultures. We played all eras of the war. I personally appreciate early and mid war better. But most players we found want the Tigers and Panthers and Stalins, oh my. Chris

OMG! LWTV is reviewing a set of rules that most wargamers have heard of!! Lions must be laying down with lambs!!!

As a cheaper version, I'm trying to go 6mm and find this scale eliminates some (not all) of the complaints of detractors.

I love flames of war and the direction they are heading. I had a great group in upstate new York but since moving to jacksonville Florida its been hard to find regular games.

I was a massive v1 player then dropped out for v2 & 3. But back now after dusting off the old armies and really loving v4.

One of our club members was a big fan of these rules and I played a couple of games with either first and/or second edition. I found the lack of over watch fire and the Romulan Cloaking system of U. S. tank destroyer units hurt the game play. Another friend was able to drive a platoon of Stuarts around a bend in the road, straight down the road at a platoon of STGs coming in the other direction, go off road, pass the bog test, drive along the side of the STGs, then fire on them and destroy them. It was also necessary to play offensively as playing defensive tactics didn't work. I have seen the "parking lot" syndrome with other rule sets when players use too many units for the game area. Normally a platoon would operate on a minimum frontage of 100m in a concentrated attack and a much larger frontage when defending or less concentrated attack The scaling effect of tank vs infantry fire ranges in FOW adds to the clumping affect. Our club member has moved on to a different set of rules and other than some tournaments I have not seen any games at the local conventions. It was fun to play, but at the time and even now there are other rules that are more historical, play better, and the overall cost was and is less.

I found this channel back in the summer, and thought war gaming looked fun. I got the a FoW starter set and different units for Christmas.

I can’t wait to see what books they have for version 5!! Love the channel guys.

If you're looking at 15mm scale, I'd strongly suggest looking at the Battlegroup rules - much better in terms of historical flavor.

Good to have you guys review this game, and enough time has passed since V4 was released 2 years ago to have a clear idea of how this version has played out. There was a lot of controversy at the time. The streamlining of the rules put a lot of established players off. Battlefront do make some great products, and your review did touch on some of the continuing issues like lack of overwatch, Ugo/Igo turn sequence, morale and so on. My area has moved away from Flames to concentrate on Team Yankee. I would enjoy seeing your take on that game, particularly as the new V2 rules bring it in to line with Flames of War V4.

Awesome Historical-Entry Game and very good Review! Thanks and hopefully we'll see some games of FoW on the chanel

I have played all of the versions as it is a staple at my club, while it is not my preferred WWII game, I am glad it exists as I love both the miniatures and that it has been an entry point for many new historical gamers.

When I first started it was described to me as a game about a movie about WWII. That being said, I love it and can’t get enough. This and Team Yankee brought me back into the hobby I left in high school and college. Now Dave you have to review Team Yankee V2!

I'd love to see some battles with the IJA.....BANZAI!

It seems interesting enough, but I think it would work better with 6mm-scale instead of 15mm. There's a FoW group near me, but they gather only on the days that I have to work.

Great video, as usual :) small correction: v4 was published in *2017*

I have been playing FoW since the 1st edition. Not the first historical rules I've played but has been my favorite so far

Excellent review!

Notice how you don't see FOW or BA at our historical convention except to host their tournaments. Historicon 2019 I didn't see a BA/FOW game out of the 300+ games on the gaming floors.

I would love to see y'all play flames of War

Great minis. Perfect for the Two Fat Lardie's Chain Of Command rule set. 🤣

Haha, Flames of War got me into wargaming. I really enjoyed it. Thank you for doing this review!

It is a bit of nostalgic to find years later Phil Yates and Wayne Smith are making a living from when I first joined a war game club as a teen where I got to know them, time flies and how we drift.

Agreed with your assessment gents. I especially like that you always seem to get a close game.

I'm not sure anyone has touched on the hobby aspect of this game. I grew up building 1/72 scale WWII aircraft kits, and it was a fun hobby for me. Flames of War allows me to combine model building as a hobby, with board gaming, with my huge interest in history. As a hobby game, FoW is great, in my opinion.

I’m gonna be getting this game soon when the SS Waffen units and book drops. I already own the Team Yankee WW3 book, which I hope you glance over at some point

Recently purchased the Desert Rats and Afrika Corps sets. Spent much time searching online for point lists, model variant notes, etc, before finally purchasing. Really hard to find details to set up an even game. The starter sets are not equal in points, and only after you buy them can you determine what you really need (Call it high start up threshold). Once I built all the models (16 tanks and 4 guns), was able to play, rather one-sided, and after playing 4 games in an afternoon trying to figure out the rules (kept thinking the rules should be more complicated), we decided it is a good game with simple-to-learn, simple-to-play rules. Looking forward to adding more to the game. BTW, thanks for reviewing FOW, hope you keep reviewing other well known games. Looking forward to the Warhammer 40K review.

I will echo that most of the veteran historical gamers in my area see FoW as a mass-tank entry game that doesn't scratch our historical itch. Yes, the tanks and minis are good and we happily use them for other rule sets. The company is also laudable as it does a good job with support to for newbies who probably started in GW and want to try something more historical. I'll be more interested when you critique Bolt Action later this season.

I would love to see you guys review Battlegroup. It's my favorite WWII Wargame!

Awesome, well balanced review. Thank you.

V4 intel has so many problems that I’ve gone to strictly using V3. Fortress Europe is a complete waist of money. The cards just clutter up the table. Totally a beer and pretzels game any more. Review Battlegroup that’s where I’m heading.

Thanks for the detailed review. I’m definitely interested In historical sand I’m torn between FoW and Bolt Action. Which one of those do you prefer.?

a rule system that I gladly don't play, so FoW 4.0 yet another company ripping of the gamer, as the two gent's have said, re boxing new / old model's, book's for book's for book's, it's so unrealistic having five tank's, H / track's so near each other.

Started playing Flames with second edition. I still like to play with my son and nephew, as we all played together for 8 years since v2. However, I am now playing mostly Battlegroup with a bunch of guys locally and I can still use my Flames units. I agree, Flames is a great point of entry but for better historical accuracy Battlegroup is better. Cheers!

I love FoW. It's the ONE wargame I always return to, after trying other stuff. I was a hopeful sceptic of V4 at first, but it won me over in no time. Fun and fast paced game!

The tank clumping can happen but you can split up each unit into groups of 3-4 tanks and use them more in a more versatile way. There are also rules about splitting command and how 1/2 of each unit can split apart. But ultimately the game is great for adding your own rules and twists so if you wanted to remove the chain of command rule you can! I would very much recommend this game for beginners or anyone wanting to do simple large scale battles and it is brilliant for multiplayer and campaigns.

i love the idea of this game, but the parking lot effect kills the immersion for me. All the games i watch are like a mob of tanks rolling around the battlefield in massive blobs that just seem to mash head on. It has a big disconnect between the theme, terrain, and tactics. Always kept me away from the game.

Thank you for your review. I've been playing FoW since v1 and have enjoyed the various versions for what they offer. In your review (and from other comments here) you mention that its drawback is that historical accuracy isn't the game's strong suit. Would you consider doing a few reviews of various games at a time by genre? What would you consider (or the favorites of the viewers) to be WW2 era games that have the playability of FoW, but have a higher degree of historical accuracy?

A good review and can concur. That said v4 has become too reductive in my opinion and alas too tournament heavy with too much emphasis on tanks. There were many who didn’t tourney with it and this is an important fact which is overlooked. Moreover, one must be very careful when tinkering with history that you don’t create distortion in the minds of new budding historians per se. Hence again not very historical in so many aspects but if it gets kids playing that’s a great. A game first and foremost as you state and not a wargame per se, but have to say it was very inspirational to us based on the earlier versions and like many historical players v4 didn’t go down well because it was seen as a cash grab and this caused a huge number to leave Fow and ironically these were the big spenders when many of the kids have a more limited budget. I think a compromise should have been considered and perhaps they should have made v4 a pure tournament system and also provided a more historical system to complement all their player base but hey ho understand their commercial position. We didn’t abandon the earlier concepts but decided to be inspired by some rubrics and that lead us to develop a highly more historical wargame system to fight ww2 on youtube. I have always said Bf need to be given more credit for their earlier work but I have to say a tad saddened it has become a warhammer like cash cow now but as you said your points are entirely well made. Ultimately it’s horses for courses but I do think after a few games interest appears to be waning as you say , head to head play doesn’t tax wargamers or players so to speak and isn’t historical really and perhaps this is why there has been a fall off. Ultimately everyone has an opinion and people should always do what they enjoy and we love what we have developed from playing the older systems and still support the earlier old school players in historical wargaming using Fow. In the past it was for wargamer and gamer alike alas not so now but as we say rules are guidelines really and it’s what you do with what you create that counts ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-aBRrltJCh-o.html

Thanks for the review! Planning to get into this. Is the game possible to play solo though?

Thank you very much for doing this review I was a big version one player but fell out of interest with it when it just got too complicated and we didn’t really get a good feel of what was going on the battlefield we did get into battle group series very heavily and that is our go to game of choice now besides Bolt action can you do a review on the battle group series it is a very good game I had a great Sadie mechanism into the mix and overall very very fun thanks guys love your channel

In terms of actual WW2 combat, I definitely prefer Bolt Action for the very easy morale system and random order of action system (I still need to buy and read chain of command, the patrol phase, jump-off points, and battle flavor look like so much fun. Check out Tabletop CP for really good battle reports of that). In terms of large scale battle though, I can't think of a better simple system for a player joining the hobby. That being said, me and my friend are looking at adjusting bolt action so that we can have larger actions in 6mm scale probably.

I enjoyed the Rules Review you guys put together. I like the categories as well. I think after watching all of your reviews, the key item missing is the ability to adapt to multi-player game play. Example for this game is designed for two players with a point system...not a fan of point systems BTW...to BA-ish. But what really grabs me for interests in a rule system is how does it handle multi-player. Most of us play games beyond with another person; but what about 3, 4, 7 players on club night? Again, thank you for the rules review.

Thanks for the review. I like the game as well. It’s great fun.

"Be professional," advice of the year. I agree with you guys, FoW is great! It's my 'primary' WW2 set, with Blitzkrieg Commander in 3mm there to handle larger scale battles (as well as stuff like Khalkin Gol and the Spanish Civil War).

Would be great to see a historical scenario for Flames of War on the show :)

Great review guys (as always!). I agree that FoW4 is a bit bland, but as you pointed out, it does exactly what it set out to do and it's "let's roll fistfuls of dice" mechanic is a great vehicle for attracting players who are otherwise only familiar with GW products to historical gaming.

Wow! this really makes me wanna play FOW. Shame I can't find somewhere to play in the Iowa/Missouri area...

Hi little wars, what's your opinion on the difference between flames of war and bolt action. If you prefer a more authentic WW2, which would you recommend?

Flames of War is great and what it's done for historical gaming is amazing. Plus Phil is a great chap.

Do you agree or disagree that this version relagates infantry to a minor support player in a game decided now mainly by armor?

I think the "growing the hobby" props should go to FOW and BF miles more than it should go to star wars legion. I'm surprised that was featured first instead.

As far as clumping goes, don't think of it as a chain tethering your units together. They can move as far away from each other as they want, they just suffer minor penalties (such as +1 to hit) due to not being as easily controllable by the platoon leader. One could think of being IN COMMAND as being a benefit, rather than the opposite. Tank commanders that can't see where their units are can't really offer much in the way of sound tactical advice or up-to-date orders, even if they do happen to have a radio, which, as we all know, not all tanks did. If the tank platoon is within command range, it can coordinate more effectively. They will maneuver more tightly, coordinate fire, the tankers can rely on the platoon leader for more of the thinking and concentrate on serving targets, rather than watching their every flank and maneuvering more desperately, just as an in-universe example. So, you can choose to have your units operate wide apart with a slight penalty due to lack of C and C and open flanks/more risky solo maneuvering, or your units can operate in a tightly-grouped strike formation with the drawback of being clumped for easier targeting by artillery, etc but with a better chance to hit their target with massed/coordinated fire. The real-life-human commanders all choosing the latter is hardly the fault of the FoW rules, in my opinion. Besides, you don't even get a drawback if you don't move the unit while it's out of command. I often leave mortar and MG teams behind on the field in key spots and advance the infantry platoons away without them. The units hit normally as long as they don't move that turn. No big deal.

The most affordable way to get a rulebook is to ask ANYONE who plays FoW, who's bound to have several of them. I got into FoW a week ago and already have three. :D

Will there be a comparison with bolt action?

I've never gotten into FoW because every time I see it it's just mass tanks and very little, if any, infantry. Not for me.

I hate to see the tanks easily moving from its side.

And all I forgot to add the one reason we liked Bella group so well is there TO &Es are very accurate and very historical you’re not gonna have 15 tiger ones fender to fender and moving around like formed infantry

Well, I like the rules. Simple to learn and play. The only thing I miss are historical scenarios books.

I loved Flames of War, first time I played it, I was a platoon of German Panzer IVs and a King Tiger. I loved it so much.

Would love to see you guys play it! Just do something other than a boring, old bocage country tussle.

I think FOW is a fantastic set of rules...its certainly the best set of WW2 rules I've ever played. It IS rather "gamey" - particularly this latest V4 iteration, but as you reviewed, it is designed to be accessible for new players, and it most definitely is that. I agree that you always get a good game from FOW. Always. Even if the scores are not particularly even, they almost never reflect on how close a game was. I do think the points system has lost definition. In order to make certain elements playable and fit into the points systems, very optimistic interpretations of the capabilities of some equipment has been made, especially at the lower end.

Although I'm definitely not a fan of the rules (tank parking lots, no command system, the morale rules, on table heavy artillery, no opportunity fire/overwatch) I must admit they do a wonderful job of being highly accessible to new players, both in the rules and in the figure packaging. Then as players build their FoW collections, they discover that their armies can be used for other rules! One of the joys of historical gaming - can't copyright historical figures. One thing struck me as odd in the review. It was mentioned that they are somewhat bland as they attempt to cover all of WW2. I'm having trouble thinking of any competing rules that DON'T cover all of WW2. What stand alone rules focus exclusively on North Africa or the Eastern Front? And I'm not counting rules that offer supplements or theatre books that go in more detail for that specific period, because FoW and a lot of other rules obviously do that. I just can't think a miniature set of rules that goes that specific.

The rulesset is made with extensive research and is well established in historical accuracy Cheers!

So back in the day of first edition, I was told Flames of War is the Warhammer40k of WW2. With the streamlining over time, do you think complexity has lowered compared to 40k?

Is this a new version of V4? Thought V4 was released 3 years ago.

thank you

I stoped playing fow in 1st ed now I'm back definately likeing the easy approach game I love WW2 setting

Thanks for that review, I like FoW a lot, but there is nearly no support for Early War. Due to the streamlining much of the units flavour is gone and with the new point system is more unbalanced. Nevertheless a good game and cool ruleset, but it had been better with only minor changes to V3.

thank you.

Some good mechanics in FoW and very accessible but troops tend to be deployed in Napoleonics ‘blocks’ which doesn’t look or feel right to me tbh. 40k meets ww2 imho. Saying that, a lot of people seem to like the game.

Excelent review, even though i moved into Battlegroup selled by PSC.

When compared to Squad Leader which also does company level actions the 2 games seem to be representing completely different things. The former is tactically rewarding while the latter has mega blobs charging each other as there isn't enough room on the table to do anything else. Also, rolling dozens of dice at once (over 40 in some cases) is a sign of pretty poor game design. If they had innovated instead of cloning GW rulesets it could have been much better. What needs fixing? Plenty, but for starters get rid of aircraft and most artillery on table. Allow defensive fire as units move, a better way of treating 30 stand platoons than exists currently and much more.

What is the "game" equivalence of Squad Leader?

I have played Bolt Action at GenCon. The battles reminded me of chess: two parallel lines facing each other. There was no maneuvering. Each piece was committed to fighting the opposing piece. Does this happen in FoW? WWII was a war of maneuver and breakthroughs. Games should be, too.

I love the models but to me it is to armour heavy and orientated. The infantry rules are trash.

What always irkes me about Flames of war: it seems so tank/vehicle heavy. WW2 was mostly a infantry war, and I see soo many tanks in FoW. Thats what I like more in Bolt Action.

6:45 I know what he means, but I can't get the image of Josef Stalin tearing a Panther apart with his bare hands out of my head.

Social media cannot replace the forums. All you get is a scrolling mess of one liner answers with very little thought involved in the answer. I miss the forums tremendously.

My friends and I play V4 but have nostalgia for v3 Not necessarily for complexity but for logistical units, and some more immersive play We're going through v3 and making a house rule set that will adjust for that Using old V3 armies and special rules, Bogged down vehicles and recovery vehicles Using smoke and wind factor Ect. I see the value in simplified targeting, allocation, the cards are great for quick reference And we tend to play on a couple 6x8 -10 tables so using old unarmored trucks and jeeps are necessary Especially since I saw your brandywine game, we gave using the "off table movent" to create flanking and reserve immersive reinforcements What we need to figure out is the balance of using cards vs old rules and it's easy enough to find a similar card or make a judgement call

I saw the models as an affordable way to get new players into WWII minis games. Then just use another system to run it. I liked that it was focused on the company level action. Trouble is the 15mm scale, while okay for a starter system, the 6mm volume of other manufacturers of vehicles, buildings and other supporting materials, not to mention the table surface better representing the 'actual' battlefield (not so much 'clumping' except for wrecks), makes this a non-starter for me.

I grew up on Panzer Leader, Squad Leader, Axis & Allies, and Starfleet Battles. Times have changed and so has the market demographics. FOW fills that niche perfectly for young gamers who don't have the attention span anymore for an overly complicated gaming experience. The D6 systems appeal to the younger generations as well as the ease of play. And when we're comparing the competition between video games and tabletop ones, that's saying a lot.

Now please do Bolt Action WWII.

Have you ever used Rapid Fire Rules

HOW MANY AND WHAT KINDA DICE DO YOU NEED ?

Ive always loved history and had an interest in wargaming, but never really gotten proper into it and started with wargaming. until Team Yankee WW3 came along, then I found a game system that combined my two interests. it managed to hit that golden balance, where I got a feel of something based in history but without it been to weighted down by simulation. a Rule system that did not have a steep learning curve, simple and approachable mechanics. that got me actually to start wargaming, which later actually lead me to find this channel. so without Battlefront, Flames of War and the misfit child Team Yankee I would not have been watching. does it have its issues, yes, but that's where you have to remember its a game. if I wanted a full on simulation I would just do what I already do on daily basis, as someone who studies history, and dive into books, accounts and archives. lets just say, its not really what Im looking for in my spare time. besides the mathematical complexities, that start to appear in a playable simulation, is handled way better by a computer, than can be done on the table top.

I think this was going to be a tough rules to review because of the popularity and history there will dissenters and fanboys. If you have fun with this game then by all means play it, but I disagree with the historical flavor and the rules mechanics. 4th ed just got to water-down and un-flaverful that I don’t feel like I played a WW2 game afterwards, but more of a checkers version.

Something I'd like is a 1/72 scale game. Anybody have any recommendations?

Warhammer WWII. I painted two armies before playing the rules and was bitterly disappointed. The game system was obviously designed to sell as many figures as possible while having 0% to do with anything associated with WWII. It is a joke if you think this is a WWII wargame. Use the minis to play ANY other set of rules for a more realistic experience.

I am glad that FoW is out there. I love Battlefront's toys, but use them to play Chain of Command. :-)

Bought the first version rules. Didn't do anything for me. I quickly realized how it was designed to continually try to milk me for $ with the continuing changing supplements and versions. Didn't like the lack of Opp Fire. Also didn't like the "chrome" - LOADS of different special rules for every nationality (which as noted in the video, you have to memorize - yours and your opponents - to be effective). I thought it really jumped the shark with the teleporting U.S. TDs. Best quote I read about FOW: It is a game using WWII miniatures, it is not a WWII game.

I only recently got into FOW since the historical group I found after years of searching play it. Personally while it's not bad It feels too much like a Warhammer-esque wargame with a WW2 skin than a WW2 wargame. Too much emphasis on listbuilding and "competitive" play at the cost of historical accuracy. The day I saw somebody waxing about how they were going to take 30 Pumas because it was the most cost-efficient competitive list for some event made me throw up in my mouth a little; I must have been absent from history class the day we learned how the Germans overran the Eastern Front by using hundreds of Armored Cars. On top of that Battlefront has started to behave like GW; they don't put rules for models they don't produce even though those models are available elsewhere. It's just a very odd historical game that, like Bolt Action, seems to be designed squarely to the disgruntled Warhammer players rather than historical gamers.

To be honest, vague basing has always been a turn-off for me with different rulesets. As a bit of a wargaming novice (and having remained so for years now, lol), I like specificity to help convince me to jump into things when I'm not sure about what I need and what I'm doing/getting into.

As a Pearson who’s getting into FOW of war due to 40k being “stream lined” the fact that this great game was gutted pisses me off to no end

I bought the starter box a few years ago. I was excited to play the game and I love the miniatures. I also bought several of the campaign/army books. What I truly dislike is that within only a few years they changed the rules twice. That seems to me to be a very GW thing to do. For the occasional player that is annoying.

the versions weren't much of a problem but individual books that totally tilted the balance. some armies simply couldnt be defeated no matter the level of your experience with the game. thats what really killed it in my community and nobody plays it anymore i dont know how v4 is but i dont think it will revive the interest. i hope it does but i dont believe it will...