New WRG Fantasy Rules

[Big Insect]

It is a bit like announcing a Led Zeppelin tour without Page or Plant

Well I shall continue to play my beloved HoTT set of rules and long may the thriving UK HoTT 'scene' continue as it is     

[steve_holmes_11]

A lot of it comes down the the breadth of the period covered. The tendancy to want to make ancient rules cover such a huge period of time and variety of cultures because "sure they all just line up and bash away at each other" means you lose a lot of nuances when doing a one size fits all rule set, then you end up having to amend and tweak to suit all the specific quirks of a particular time period or army.

It probably becomes more of an issue in "competitive" style rule sets where every army and game has to fit a mold, rather than ones that are more "scenario" driven that naturally incline towards a bit more configuration to suit the game rather than changing core rules.

I'm not sure it is down to the "3000BC-1500AD 90% of recorded history" effect.


Rulesets from later periods suffer the same entropy problems as amendments are layered on.
Classic examples can be found within the Napoleonic setting.
A very narrow timeframe with a minimal technology gap between the main forces.

I'm inclined to cite the competition scene, and the resulting lobbying from the most competitive players.

[Big Insect]

I'm inclined to cite the competition scene, and the resulting lobbying from the most competitive players.

I'm inclined to agree with you Steve - but probably for different reasons.

Competition gamers (in my experience) will stress-test a set of rules to its extremes.
That doesn't necessarily mean they are looking deliberately to break or bend the rules - often it is around a need for absolute clarity in a specific situation. Ambiguity is the nightmare of a competition umpire. Sets of rules that glibly state: "if the rules are unclear or ambiguous, mutually come to an agreement about how to proceed" are totally naïve - competition gamers will just laugh long & loud and chuck the rules over their shoulders in disgust. Plus in a competition of over 100 players, getting any sort of agreement on an ambiguous point will be like herding cats  

Sure, you're going to get a very few rogue players who are trying to get a rule amended to favor their way of playing or their favored army, but the bulk of competition players will quite happily play more flexible or forgiving sets of rules in a club or social wargames setting. A player that only plays competitions is (IMHO) extremely rare.

Some players just have a 'genetic' need to 'tinker' with a rules set - any or all rules sets - and its just in their make-up. The problem tends to be however that the bulk of players are not that fanatical about the hobby or their rules sets. But it is not uncommon for those with a passion or a 'bent' towards needing to 'tinker' to be the ones that get hold of a set of rules and (very often) subsequently destroy it in an attempt to create the ultimate holy-grail of rules. Field of Glory Ancients & Medieval is a classic example - it started off as a perfectly good set of rules published by Osprey in an expensive format, however most players had given up on the system well before the final v3 amended copy came on sale. It is still being played on the competition circuit, but the numbers of players are dwindling. Errata and Amendments will almost always be necessary in a rules set, no matter how well play-tested or edited & proof-read (lord knows, I know this  ) but most of the FoGA&M amendments were around changing the way the game was structurally played. Flames of War v4 has gone off in a similar direction - with a large majority of those playing v3 just throwing in the towel when v4 was announced. Of course it can be a deliberate & if managed successfully, highly profitable strategy and a way of getting existing players to buy more new stock (GW is the case-study bar-none in that respect) but most sets of rules don't have the following to withstand multiple changes and amendments. GW appears to rely upon a very loyal core of existing players and a massive churn from newer younger players that get drawn into the latest codex etc.

From everything I am reading around this latest 'WRG' Fantasy set it appears to be the 'new-wave' DBA players wanting to extend the franchise. But IMHO HoTT rules in this particular space and woe betide anybody attempting to tinker with HoTT 

[steve_holmes_11]

Interesting summary there Mr Big Insect.

I don't rub shoulders with competition players.
Many years ago when I did, they seemed a breed apart, wired quite differently in their appreciation of fun.
This used to bother me, but now I'm content for the hobby to run with many styles of game.

The mention of Field of Glory and Flames of war reminded me of our own Blitzkrieg Commander and its "Difficult third version" problems.


It all makes me wonder when Little Wars will get a second edition.

[Big Insect]

It all makes me wonder when Little Wars will get a second edition.

Be careful what you wish for       

[steve_holmes_11]

Be careful what you wish for       

Fans have been lobbying H.G.Wells for a Tripod codex for over a century now.

[fsn]

Is this really a 'WRG' launch - where's Phil Barker's imprimatur?

And the fanaticus.board.net link doesn't work for me.

https://fanaticus.boards.net/
This one?

[Gwydion]

I just thought that the news might be of interest to some gamers so cut and pasted the article, but the link in the original post does not work either 

A few minutes of searching located the correct one: https://fanaticus.boards.net/forum

Yep - ^^^^ that one.
But thanks.

[Raider4]

I spent an hour looking at that DB* forum.
I left thinking "Once we had a viable six page ruleset. Where did it all go wrong".

I have the DBA 2.2 rulebook - it is 20 pages long (plus the army lists).

I also have the WADBAG "Unofficial Guide to DBA", a 60 page document that explains how the rules actually work.

So I'm not sure that things weren't wrong to begin with.