The game
- Thread starter Drahazar
- Start date
It's based on SST but with some better mechanics in it. It's relatively easy to learn and play. It's a great game and can work well from skirmishes through to 6,000 or so points. However some of the mechanics are a lot harder to use in a larger game (eg trying to make full use of unit cohesion rules when you're running several infantry squads).
There is a bit of a debate about the points balance but it works well.
It's well worth getting into.
Hope that helps.
There is a bit of a debate about the points balance but it works well.
It's well worth getting into.
Hope that helps.
The Old Soldier
Mongoose
Mr Evil said:
He means TACTICAL.
Otherwise you don't want to get kicked in your tacticles. :wink:
Well, if you're looking for similar games, 40K probably isn't too far off. You generally play some infantry squads, a few small vehicles, and maybe one big tank (or chopper, when those are released). You move all of your units on your turn, although reactions by the opposing side can break this up a bit. You roll lots of six-sided dice 
.
I think the balance is decent so far, although I haven't done nearly enough matchups to be sure. The game is still being released, so some of the units (helicopters and other air power, for instance) still aren't out yet. For that matter, the advanced rulebook still hasn't made it to the US yet, so we're still using "quick start" rules. Those rules are pretty good, but the game is going to grow in the next few months. If you want to get in on the ground floor, that's good; if you want to do research and just buy a single army list, it might be worth waiting for a bit.
If you really want to try out the game, the quick start rules and several unit cards are available on this website, including unit cards for some units that haven't been released yet. It might be worth going through the rules, to see if they sound interesting to you. I actually first got interested in SST after reading the rules: the reaction system breaks up the "I go, you go" turn structure fairly well, and I think the BF:Evo changes are an improvement over the original. There is less dice rolling, too, although you can still get a handful of d6's going during an infantry shootout.
.I think the balance is decent so far, although I haven't done nearly enough matchups to be sure. The game is still being released, so some of the units (helicopters and other air power, for instance) still aren't out yet. For that matter, the advanced rulebook still hasn't made it to the US yet, so we're still using "quick start" rules. Those rules are pretty good, but the game is going to grow in the next few months. If you want to get in on the ground floor, that's good; if you want to do research and just buy a single army list, it might be worth waiting for a bit.
If you really want to try out the game, the quick start rules and several unit cards are available on this website, including unit cards for some units that haven't been released yet. It might be worth going through the rules, to see if they sound interesting to you. I actually first got interested in SST after reading the rules: the reaction system breaks up the "I go, you go" turn structure fairly well, and I think the BF:Evo changes are an improvement over the original. There is less dice rolling, too, although you can still get a handful of d6's going during an infantry shootout.
As a fifteen year 40k veteran I have to say BF is far superior. It is very well balanced ( nothings perfect but it is far less flawed than most point systems ) It is also an excellent balance between realism and ease of play.
Its no simulation, but units behave mostly how they should and most importantly RL tactics work mostly how they should. As a vet and as well as a military history major that means a lot to me.
I could not recommend it more
As for games to compare it with SST obviously although as mentioned it improves over the original substantially, I would also compare it with Flames of War not as to scale but as to the balance of ease of play with realism.
Its no simulation, but units behave mostly how they should and most importantly RL tactics work mostly how they should. As a vet and as well as a military history major that means a lot to me.
I could not recommend it more
As for games to compare it with SST obviously although as mentioned it improves over the original substantially, I would also compare it with Flames of War not as to scale but as to the balance of ease of play with realism.
bigtmac68 said:
It's "I go, you go" (IGOUGO), like 40K. It's got a similar number of models on the table as 40K. Infantry squad move and act as a unit, like 40K. I think all the changes are improvements too, but it is closer to 40K than, say, Crossfire or Defiance: Vital Ground.
bigtmac68 said:
Again I agree, in general. This weekend I took out a Challenger II by ramming it with my Shadow. Yes, it was already damaged, but after the "close combat" attack the Challenger II was out of the game and the Shadow was undamaged. I didn't think "bumper cars" was one of those RL tactics, especially with a glorified Jeep ramming an MBT
.But yes, in general modern tactics work well in this game. Try to charge someone across a field, and you will get mowed down without anyone breaking a sweat. I do think we need a few more units to be released before I'm willing to call it good (AT infantry, for example), but we've got more units on the way already, so that's fine.
The Old Soldier
Mongoose
Please, not a STUPID debate over 40K. The two games have little in common, but really they are completely seperate games. So lets not compare Apples to Diamonds.
I could give tons of examples that show the two systems are very different including that, I go/you go comment. But it is not worth my time.
I could give tons of examples that show the two systems are very different including that, I go/you go comment. But it is not worth my time.
The Old Soldier said:
Context difference, I'm afraid. I'm comparing over BGG's game library, where BF:Evo and WH40K are fairly similar. You're comparing over the set of all SF or near-future miniatures games that have seen international publication in the last two years; there BF:Evo and WH40K are fairly different. Kinda like Apples and Diamonds look alike, if you are just looking for carbon...
Since Drahazar didn't provide any context for where he's coming from, I'm not sure whose comments are more useful. That's why I tried to provide some further information, having made the initial comparison. It's an approach others might try :roll: .
I play WH40k Necrons and Tau, for warhammer fantasy Dwarfs adn Tomb kings I just got into fantasy. been playing 40k sence 2nd ed. I just got into a few months ago Babylon 5 I play minbari probably get shadows and vorlons. When I was younger i played axis and allies and risk. I play a lot of strategy games on the computer. And necrons rule Space Marines suck. I would have to play USA in BF EVO
Ah, well, in that case I agree with The Old Soldier: BFE is nothing like WH40K . Well, it is a small scale skirmish game, but not horribly similar beyond that.
Big game play differences:
1) Each unit basically gets 3 actions per game turn: two during your part of the turn, and one during your opponent's. The action during your opponent's turn can only be used in certain ways, though, to react to your opponent's actions. On your turn, you are free to use your two actions to do whatever you want: shoot, move, set up a machine gun, whatever.
2) You activate one unit at a time during your turn, and finish both it's actions before moving on to the next unit. So rather than having everyone move, then everyone shoot, then everyone hack at people with knives, you'll see all those occur in various orders during the turn.
3) Armor ain't all that. If you try to charge across an open field, even with US Marines (the best equipped infantry in the game), they'll be cut down, and fast. A tank has a chance of making it across the field, but it isn't a great chance, and that's a lot of resources to risk on "maybe".
Gameplay is, in general, pretty fast. And the wimpier armor means you see a lot more tactical use of terrain; don't try playing this on an open field, since I think it's only balanced for urban or other dense terrain.
Are the point values balanced? I still don't have enough games to be sure, and over half the planned models aren't released yet so my games wouldn't be much help anyway. I think infantry-heavy armies like the MEA and PLA have an advantage at low (<= 500) point values, but things seem pretty stable in the recommended 1000-2000 point range. From my experience, anyway.
. Well, it is a small scale skirmish game, but not horribly similar beyond that.Big game play differences:
1) Each unit basically gets 3 actions per game turn: two during your part of the turn, and one during your opponent's. The action during your opponent's turn can only be used in certain ways, though, to react to your opponent's actions. On your turn, you are free to use your two actions to do whatever you want: shoot, move, set up a machine gun, whatever.
2) You activate one unit at a time during your turn, and finish both it's actions before moving on to the next unit. So rather than having everyone move, then everyone shoot, then everyone hack at people with knives, you'll see all those occur in various orders during the turn.
3) Armor ain't all that. If you try to charge across an open field, even with US Marines (the best equipped infantry in the game), they'll be cut down, and fast. A tank has a chance of making it across the field, but it isn't a great chance, and that's a lot of resources to risk on "maybe".
Gameplay is, in general, pretty fast. And the wimpier armor means you see a lot more tactical use of terrain; don't try playing this on an open field, since I think it's only balanced for urban or other dense terrain.
Are the point values balanced? I still don't have enough games to be sure, and over half the planned models aren't released yet so my games wouldn't be much help anyway. I think infantry-heavy armies like the MEA and PLA have an advantage at low (<= 500) point values, but things seem pretty stable in the recommended 1000-2000 point range. From my experience, anyway.
Drahazar said:
No crit charts. Basically you have two types of hit. If the attacker rolls at or above the "Target" value, the tank has to make an armor save, and takes a point of damage if it fails. If the attacker rolls at or above the "Kill" value, the tank is destroyed. So you could consider a Kill to be a critical hit that goes BOOM, but you never track stuck turrets, broken weapons or other such things. I don't mind having less to keep track of, but some people like the extra detail; YMMV.
Drahazar said:
Well, you can download the quick-start rules (which is all many of us have to play with at this point anyway) and unit cards from the website here: http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/home/series.php?qsSeries=47 . So if you don't mind proxying models, you could be playing in an hour or two.
