Which are Best, Great War or Through the Mud and Blood?

[Sambeaux]

I have both these rules but I have not played yet as I am still painting my army.  Great War is very nice pictures but Through the Mud  and Blood looks like it is more historical.  Which is best for IWW gaming from people who have played both?

Thank you. 

[scarabminiatures]

Both will give a good game to represent WW1. For Inter War gaming I have also seen both sets used.

I have played both and enjoy them.

Mud/Blood is one model = one man, Great War is one model = 3 men so plays at a different level. I prefer the GW game as I play bigger games with more equipment and the casualties rates are high, better representing the assaults.
If I was doing a Trench raid or small action I would use Mud and Blood.

So a lot will depend on the size of game you want to play and it really should be stressed they are different types of game so play both!

As a final footnote we should look at continued support for the games and here Mud wins out big time. A couple of fan forums (including our own www.scarabminiatures.com/forum) do support the Great War. We (Scarab) have decided to do our own set of rules to encompass the wider aspects of WW1 and related conflicts to make up for this and add some extra detail. This is due late 2011 after War and Conquest.

[Lowtardog]

I echo Scarab completely and would add that the GW set will be familiar to 40K gamers which can be a bonus getting new players interested in the period without taxing them too much

[Pentaro]

I'm afraid I prefer Mud & Blood; it's simpler and more realistic at the same time. It represents suppression, leadership or fog of war very well without having to learn complex rules. It's great for small actions, up to a small company per side.

We (Scarab) have decided to do our own set of rules to encompass the wider aspects of WW1 and related conflicts to make up for this and add some extra detail. This is due late 2011 after War and Conquest.

Great news.

[Phil Robinson]

I own and have played both but much prefer TMB, I found GW to be a little flavourless.

[Yankeepedlar01]

I own and have played both but much prefer TMB, I found GW to be a little flavourless.

Let's face it, you come second whichever set we use! Happy Christmas!
I prefer TMB, even though the early moves often tax my concentration, ultimately more satisfying game, whatever the result.

[delta6ct]

I've never played Great War, but have always enjoyed M&B. Either way have fun.

Mike

[Stecal]

M&B are the better rules for smaller actions.  Great War is useful for large games with inexperienced  players.

[redzed]

I own and have played both but much prefer TMB, I found GW to be a little flavourless.

this

[General]

M&B definitely.

[Der LvR]

I don't own M&B, looks like that'll have to change.

[carlos marighela]

Leaving aside things such as trench raids or patrols into no-mans land, typically the smallest tactical unit of the war was a company or more realistically the battalion, so I struggle to see how games that feature 1:1 or 1:3 figure ratios can give much of a period flavour. Being generous, by my calculations a 1:3 scale battalion works put to be about 250-300 figures. That's a lot of lead.

Personally I still prefer the old Frank Chadwick/Greg Novak Over the Top rules from the Command Decision stable. They still play very fluidly and a stand ( I use single figure bases with 28mm) = a platoon/ troop or roughly a 1:40/ 1:50. At this scale you can fight brigade and even divisional actions with relative ease. Of course it all depends on what you expect out of a game.

[Phil Robinson]

Leaving aside things such as trench raids or patrols into no-mans land, typically the smallest tactical unit of the war was a company or more realistically the battalion.

This may have been true earlier in the war but not later.