'Through the Mud and the blood' VS 'The Great war'

[Sixmilletoe]

Hi everyone,

Having just started to collect WW1, I was wondering if it was worth trying to obtain a copy of 'The great war' or if 'Mud and blood' was as good if not a better choice than the former. My good friend JimBibbly recently purchased 'Mud and Blood', so no doubt this will get tested at some point soon hopefully However I have not played either as yet, so if anyone could point me in the right direction I would be most grateful.

Many thanks

Chris

[OSHIROmodels]

Shit mate, don't confuse things. I'm bad enough with only one rule set to plough though 

cheers

James

[prof_nexus]

I have them both, like them both. Honestly, I don't think Warhammer: The Great War is as enticing without the Over the Top expansion, and I wouldn't say it's worth what you'll probably end up paying if you can find a copy. I like Mud and the Blood a lot, but not all of my gaming buddies appreciate card driven games. Warhammer: The Great War works well if players prefer the IGO-UGO method, and familiar elements from 40K.

[Sixmilletoe]

I have them both, like them both. Honestly, I don't think Warhammer: The Great War is as enticing without the Over the Top expansion, and I wouldn't say it's worth what you'll probably end up paying if you can find a copy. I like Mud and the Blood a lot, but not all of my gaming buddies appreciate card driven games. Warhammer: The Great War works well if players prefer the IGO-UGO method, and familiar elements from 40K.

Thanks Again Prof_nexes for getting back to me on this subject matter. Very helpful indeed. Do you Reckon 40k rules would suffice in place of 'The Great war' rule set then?  I read somewhere that the rules for heavy machine guns were different?

[General]

You can't go wrong with the Mud & the Blood.  Great fog of war rules that are logical and promote real world tactics.  The card-driven initiative tends hold player's attention better than IGOUGO type of contests. 

[Red Sveta]

Through the Mud and Blood is one of the bast rules systems I have ever played and would recommend it totaly, Great War is very simplistic, I used to play it a lot sold the rules and gave up with it a few months ago. There is also another option though called Crush the Kaiser. I have them but havnt tried them yet and they are a Igo ugo set based on Rapid Fire I think, they look like a decent game. There is also free set from the Perfect Captain which could be adapted to WW1.

[Phil Robinson]

Gave Great War a try, but we felt they had no "feel" of the period, the Over the Top supplement adds to it greatly though, but for a real feel, especially the late period, I would also recommend Mud and Blood, they give a very challenging and rewarding game, although I think they work better with an umpire to run it.

[Sixmilletoe]

Thanks for all the feedback guys. With all that's been said, I believe I will spend my money on more figures rather than trying to obtain an expensive copy of 'The great war'! I'll just have to be patient and wait for Jim to lend me his copy of 'mud and Blood'! 

[OSHIROmodels]

You're a cheeky bugger. Buy your own copy 

cheers

James

[Bergil]

Just to jump in, I haven't played either but I do own mud and blood. A fantastic and logical ruleset if I ever did see one.

[Chuckaroobob]

To further muddy the waters, there's a modification of Iron Ivan's "Disposable Heroes" for WW1 called "Price of Glory."  If you like DH you're probably like PoG too.

IIRC HMG's in GW GW can fire in two ways; all dice against one target or spread out their dice at multiple targets.

[prof_nexus]

IIRC HMG's in GW GW can fire in two ways; all dice against one target or spread out their dice at multiple targets.

It's a little more than that. You can either take 8 shots at one unit, or 3 shots at each unit in range while using the flamer template for your fire arc. A unit takes a pin test if it's hit. If you take the 8 dice at 1 unit shot, the unit that's hit gets a -1 to it's pin test for each hit.

[Stecal]

Both games have their advantages.  Mud & Blood is really a 2 player game that doesn't scale every well to multiplayer large games due to the card mechanism.  GW is perfect for the WW1 "Megabattle"

GW bears little resemblance to the current 40K ver 6 as GW was based on 40K ver 3 or 4 with a lot od WW1 modifications.

[Red Sveta]

I think GW was ok at the time it came as there was not really a "glossy" set of rules with  support for people interested in WW1 at the time. Over time other sets like Mud and Blood have surpassed it greatly. I increasingly felt when playing GW how frustratingly simplistic it was, but if one likes those sort of games its ok. I also tried some Chris Peers rules and found them to be much the same as GW in feel. I think Triumph and Tradergy would also provide a good option for WW1 which probably says more about the sort of rules I like than anything elce I suppose.

[Wirelizard]

Both games have their advantages.  Mud & Blood is really a 2 player game that doesn't scale every well to multiplayer large games due to the card mechanism. 

I'd have to disagree there. I've umpired a whole bunch of M&B games with four, five and even six players, and it works beautifully. Keeping the cards coming up quickly keeps anyone from getting bored.

One modification of the card deck system we've tried and liked (especially at conventions) is that when the "Turn End" card comes up, the remaining bottom portion of the deck is moved unshuffled to the top of the current deck, with the played cards being shuffled and put below the unused cards. This ensures that every card comes up at least every other turn and makes the game a lot faster.