* Opponents who never read the rules, then complain they're being unfairly treated when they find they can't do something ridiculous.
* Players who maintain that for most of military history troops fought in lines and columns and wore uniforms for the sake of ritual, tradition, and keeping the blimps happy.
* Players who call halberds pikes (you too, Sir Terry).
* Historians who act as if the only conflicts of interest involved the pink-skinned races who spoke romance or Germanic languages.
* Japanese games with ten figures a side.
* Rule sets that can't be played from a cheat sheet after a few goes.
* Anything with more props than regiments (order cards, frames, templates, sliding measuring sticks....)
* Flat bits of cloth representing a forest.
* Players who treat the 18th century as a rehearsal for the Napoleonic wars.
* " " " " Napoleonic wars " " " " " ACW.
* Players who never set brush to a figure and are then cavalier and destructive in handling other people's armies.
* Rules written in pidgin English by people whose surname suggests an antipathy to cats equal to their hostility towards punctuation.
* People who use Boxer figures in a Ch'ao army, since we all know eternal Asia never changes anyway.
* People who do the same with legionaries carrying semi-cylindrical shields, since we all know that Rome was unchanged over a millenium.
* Rule sets that still try to treat a longbow as a kind of early bren gun.
...............
Feel free to inflate your posts add your own betes noir.
That Roman thing particularly irks me in Hollywood films.
Right! And the absence of metal armour, Huns with stirrups and horseshoes, monochrome uniforms and unpainted shields, matchlocks that never miss...but perhaps this would do for a new thread, once we've worked off our spleen in this one.
- Armies consisting only of guard or elite units.
- Those who decry rather than educate
- Rule sets that require expansion sets fro you to play the bit you're actually interested in
- Rivet counters
Agreed!
Players that decry, condemn, insult, or ridicule games that other players enjoy.
Bad rules that get played, not because they are good, but because 'everyone is playing them'.
Rules that are unnecessarily complex.
People that book a club table, and then don't turn up.
People at the club who insist on the heating being on despite the fact that its hot enough to roast a chicken in the room.
45º shooting arcs for formed units.
Regiments represented by 20 28mm figures.
The lack of non European figures ranges.
The cost of good looking pre made terrain.
The time I have to spend painting when I should be gaming.
FoG for destroying the superior DBM.
Dice when they screw up my brilliantly executed battle plans.
Quote from: Leman on 29 April 2015, 06:38:05 AM
That Roman thing particularly irks me in Hollywood films.
Another Hollywood hate for me is Dark Ages and Medieval soldiers acting like robots and exercising the same discipline and drill as the Prussian Army of the SYW. You know the kind of thing - sentries standing to attention, file marching in step before cadenced marching was introduced in the 18th Century, etc.
Oh, and people that get to the club five minutes early and hog enough of the limited table space for any three games by other players.
In "clip clop swish swish" and "clip clop pop pop" films everybody giving up any form of fighting in concert for individual hand to hand combat. "Let's form a shield wall, then when the enemy gets close, let's pick one and dance with him".
Since it seems to be turning into a movie gripe session, how about cavalry who carry shields but never use them to protect themselves, and scouts who attack single-handed instead of reporting to the main force, Mr Jackson?
Don't get me started on Hollywood and its depictions of history -any history other than its own...and even some of that is suspect. Although, there again, the British film industry is not totally blameless in that regard, (Cromwell being a case in point).
Sets of 'rules' that are 5 pages of actual rules, then 28 pages of colour pictures of beautifully painted 28mm figures on fantastic looking terrain as examples of play and cost an arm and a leg, (old school, me).
Sets of rules that are published and then, a couple of months later, an errata list is published. Then, six months down the line, another copy of the same rules is published with the errata added. This is why you proof read the bl**dy thing first time so as to get it right!
Sets of rules that have so many follow-on glossy publications, all costing another arm and a leg each.
Ancient rules that cover thousands of years of combat.
Sets of rules with specific base sizes at odds to every other set of rules.
Sets of rules that require a bucket load of dice to hit and the same amount in saving throws!
Rivet counters.
Wargamers who poo-poo 6 and 10mm figures.
People who can't be ar*ed to research the army they have.
The centipede approach to chiselling the customer.
Wargames mags that give historical descriptions but army lists for one particular rule set.
Amazed to see how few of these things irk me.
People who don't bother to learn the rules.
People who roughly handle the figures/ terrain (or players!)
The medieval English machinebow and similar.
That's about it.
Having had quite a bit of fun with CoC, despite it involving German Space Marines fighting Russian Eldar because none of us had appropriate single based figures, I'd be hard pressed to complain about Early Imperial Romans fighting either the Carthaginians or the Vandals! :)
[Heh! Just realised, this is the pet hate topic re-visited. Anyhoo - probably time for us all to have a good moan again. And so .... ]
Quote from: Luddite on 29 April 2015, 08:24:43 AM
Regiments represented by 20 28mm figures.
I think I'm more comfortable with that kind of thing than I used to be now. Although I do believe that the smaller the scale, the more figures you should use per unit. But that is as much to do with base sizes, measurement and handling purposes as anything else. Aesthetically, more figures per unit are impressive but, for the larger scales, particularly 28mm, I think large numbers of figures tend to diminish the artistic skills of the hobbyist with brilliantly painted figures 'lost' in the crowd.
I don't wish to hi-jack this thread (for too long, anyway - I'm sure we'll soon get back on topic) but I would be interested to know what constitutes the perfect number of figures before individual wargamers' minds accept that what they are looking at is a regiment or battalion. After all, whatever our minds come up with as 'acceptable' to enable us to cross our own credibility thresholds, it still does not compare to a 1:1 unit. The first time I saw a 1:1 unit (a French Napoleonic Young Guard battalion in 15mm), I was blown away - and so was all my angst about unit size. In the absence of seeing the real thing, it was the most effective way for me to imagine what a real battalion looked line in line, column and square and thereafter, typically scaled down war-games versions were simply incomparable.
Now that I think of it, I suppose my own pet hate is spacing as often seen in the movies ("OK, you hundred guys - spread out to look like a thousand") and then copied by wargamers.
[Aaah. That's better. I needed to get that off my chest.]
What really rubs me up the wrong way is people who turn up at shows and do nothing but criticise the standard of painting of the armies being used. Our club has had a bit of that over the years, come on we are a small club who tries their best to put on a game using the resources we have. Not everybody can paint like most of the people on this forum :) :)
For me, and speaking 10mm, I can accept 24 figures in six elements of four as the minimum size for a small battalion, as I play it in 19th century colonials. I strongly suspect I'm influenced by the unit sizes in the first sort of acceptable set of rules I ever played. Where I don't actively want a unit to look dismally outnumbered, I usually go for 30-40 figures; more than that for enormous hordes.
For me, 28mm figures only really look the part if used 1:1 in skirmish style gaming.
I have a few 28mm 'unit' armies - mostly based on 50x50mm bases in 2 mounted or 4 infantry figures, and that's OK but it just doesn't look like a proper army. Not in the way that a mass of 10mm figures on a base can really look like an army.
Personal preferences of course. *shrug* ;)
Quote from: Westmarcher on 29 April 2015, 11:26:07 AM
'...I don't wish to hi-jack this thread (for too long, anyway - I'm sure we'll soon get back on topic) but I would be interested to know what constitutes the perfect number of figures before individual wargamers' minds accept that what they are looking at is a regiment or battalion. After all, whatever our minds come up with as 'acceptable' to enable us to cross our own credibility thresholds, it still does not compare to a 1:1 unit. The first time I saw a 1:1 unit (a French Napoleonic Young Guard battalion in 15mm), I was blown away - and so was all my angst about unit size. In the absence of seeing the real thing, it was the most effective way for me to imagine what a real battalion looked line in line, column and square and thereafter, typically scaled down war-games versions were simply incomparable...'
I'm right with you on that one. I once saw a game of 1:1 6mm ECW on something like an 8' x 4' or larger table and there were about four units per side! It looked fantastic and gave you an insight as to the enormity of controlling such a behemoth on a real battlefield.
"what constitutes the perfect number of figures before individual wargamers' minds accept that what they are looking at is a regiment or battalion"
In my LoA forces I am using small 21 figure infantry units, but lots of them to give the impression of lots of battalions in multiple lines. My French army will have 40 foot battalions when finished (840 figures). If I was to copy the wonderful looking 60 figure units shown elsewhere I would need 2400 figures and 3 times the table space.
My 15mm medieval Scots spearmen are in blocks of 48 and they look beautiful 8) :D
Cheers
Ian
oooh, oooh can I join in....
too late already in.
Rules that, as have already been mentioned, 5 pages of rules and the rest pictures ... to add into this... 'this is How I played a game' my chums and I got out our toys, had a cup of tea and then set them up. Meh! I dont give a monkeys' what you did, if it isn't helping explain the rules go away and put it online. Not in something that cost me x amount of pounds which would have been better suited buying figure to play my own version of the game.
oh and the free figure was nice but as my whole army is in 10mm... i now have a nice free figure sat on the bookshelf (Sitting on a pile of books on Gladiators and ancient Rome)
rant over...
Sorry to repost but I just had to put the bl**dy quotes in the right bl**dy place!
Quote from: Westmarcher on 29 April 2015, 11:26:07 AM
I'... don't wish to hi-jack this thread (for too long, anyway - I'm sure we'll soon get back on topic) but I would be interested to know what constitutes the perfect number of figures before individual wargamers' minds accept that what they are looking at is a regiment or battalion. After all, whatever our minds come up with as 'acceptable' to enable us to cross our own credibility thresholds, it still does not compare to a 1:1 unit. The first time I saw a 1:1 unit (a French Napoleonic Young Guard battalion in 15mm), I was blown away - and so was all my angst about unit size. In the absence of seeing the real thing, it was the most effective way for me to imagine what a real battalion looked line in line, column and square and thereafter, typically scaled down war-games versions were simply incomparable...'
I'm right with you on that one. I once saw a game of 1:1 6mm ECW on something like an 8' x 4' or larger table and there were about four units per side! It looked fantastic and gave you an insight as to the enormity of controlling such a behemoth on a real battlefield.
Quote from: Sandinista on 29 April 2015, 12:15:10 PM
"what constitutes the perfect number of figures before individual wargamers' minds accept that what they are looking at is a regiment or battalion"
Ain't no such fing as perfect (post war British tanks and Milady's graceful ankles excepted.) Think it depends on the period. For Napoleonic (most clip clop, pop pop)you MUST have the colour party of at least 4. To my eyes they look a bit silly with less than 16 blokes round them - better still 20. I like the big battalions - 40+ and play at divisional level. Means that my Pendraken Napoleonics will not
initially have every type going - I do not plan any French Guard - but I will have lots of line infantry, dragoons and light cavalry - not unlike (he said hopefully) the original.
Problem for me is when you have units made of more than one type. For example a Republican Roman legion or an ECW infantry regiment. One lot of pikes, two of muskets - you need at least 36 to a regiment. (That's a little over £4.50.)
Damn. Now I've looked at the Pendraken ECW page and that copy of the "English Civil War: An Illustrated Military History" by Philip Haythornthwaite has just fallen into my hand.
... Ooooh! Purple uniforms!
Quote from: fsn on 29 April 2015, 04:26:58 PM
Damn. Now I've looked at the Pendraken ECW page and that copy of the "English Civil War: An Illustrated Military History" by Philip Haythornthwaite has just fallen into my hand.
... Ooooh! Purple uniforms!
And lots of nice ECW flags, that Leon still needs to put on the website
Cheers
Ian
Quote from: fsn on 29 April 2015, 04:20:00 PM
One lot of piles, two of muskets ....
Could offer you some ointment for the former.
Never had a double dose of muskets. Is it worse? :-\
Quote from: Westmarcher on 29 April 2015, 05:03:57 PM
Could offer you some ointment for the former.
Never had a double dose of muskets. Is it worse? :-\
Maybe it depends if you have gone off half cock
Quote from: Fenton on 29 April 2015, 05:23:34 PM
Maybe it depends if you have gone off half cock
... or maybe put your ramrod in where it shouldn't have gone?
Using the phrase "Dark Ages".
Why all the negative waves! It's a beautiful day!
- Gamers who spend their time moaning about other gamers likes and dislikes, just enjoy the games and if you disagree with someones views then don't play at the same table as them.
- Gamers who moan about rule sets, if you don't like them then don't play them.
- Gamers who think that painters should be honoured to paint their figures and not pay for the level of skill and labour involved in painting (yet can charge hundreds of pounds to their customers for half an hours work unblocking a drain or such like).
- Kickstarter projects where the company does not deliver or produces such shoddy products that they may as well not have delivered them to the backers. >:( >:(
- But most of all - companies who think they have a right to control and dictate to customers.
Apart from that not much. :)
My goodness; this is like something out of the Dark Ages!
Quote from: mad lemmey on 29 April 2015, 05:51:12 PM
Why all the negative waves! It's a beautiful day!
=D> =D>
Good for you, Lemmey (and Oddball).
(Lucky you - yesterday was a horrible day weather wise where I live! - fortunately it's now a beautiful day here too!)
Nobby - you changed it! :P
Luddite - wasn't moaning about your comment on unit size by the way - that was me just steering us off on one of our customary tangents - the 'spacing' comment was the moan. :)
Dark Ages - should that be Early Medieval now? :-\
Just in case anyone didn't get it my 'moans' were said tongue in cheek, well apart from the last two. ;)
QuoteWhy all the negative waves! It's a beautiful day!
Because we all like to moan..... a lot
To add a couple of my own,
Big fat rule books full of pictures of 28mm figures on vast tables, the set up is beyong anything available to the average gamer on a club night.
Big fat rule books full of pictures of 28mm figures where the rules are totaly lost among the eye candy.
Big fat rule books full of pictures of 28mm figures which don't have a table of contents
Big fat rule books full of pictures of 28mm figures which don't have an index.
INCHES >:( ; they are an anacronism when we use mm for base and figure sizes.
I must be in the minority, but I love seeing rule books packed with loads of nice pics (but then I'm not a gamer)
Quote from: Matt of Munslow on 30 April 2015, 03:38:17 PM
I must be in the minority, but I love seeing rule books packed with loads of nice pics (but then I'm not a gamer)
I am a gamer (mostly solo) and I like looking at them, but I don't like the price tag or the inevitable add-ons or addenda. I would much rather research and write my own.
Oooh...i've got another one...
Rules that are hidden away in reams of pointless text. Just tell me the rule clearly and succinctly. >:( ;D
Quote from: Matt of Munslow on 30 April 2015, 03:38:17 PM
I must be in the minority, but I love seeing rule books packed with loads of nice pics (but then I'm not a gamer)
I also love the eye candy
Take care
Andy
Quote from: Matt of Munslow on 30 April 2015, 03:38:17 PM
I must be in the minority, but I love seeing rule books packed with loads of nice pics (but then I'm not a gamer)
Hmmm, same here on both counts.
Eye candy is good
Cheers
Ian
Ok, we're obviously talking about the Black Powder stable of rules, so here's my three 'appence. It does state very clearly at the beginning that it is NOT a set of hard and fast rules but should be approached as a toolbox. It will not suit DBX style players as it is not set in legalese or concrete (as I found to my ears' cost when my regular opponent saw me reading Pike and Shotte). The pictures are advertising a very attractive aspect of the hobby, and anything in there can be reproduced on a 6'x4' table using 10mm figures and cm instead of inches - we are lucky to be 10mm converts. The books have been written to give the feel of a friendly club evening rather than a competition, so I think they do what they have set out to do.
However (and there always is one) they are a high price and they have generated expensive follow on books. I was particularly disappointed with the C18th book as it was mostly scenarios outside the WAS and SYW. Yes, the chummy nature of the prose does mean you have to search out rules rather than seeing them in logical bullet point order, but at least BP has a decent contents page.
So how to enjoy the rules. The answer for me has been to treat them as that toolbox. I have produced a more detailed sequence of play with bullet points, army lists for SYW Austria and Prussia, which will need to change. On the reverse I have the specific rules for the SYW, such as unable to fire if more than one movement action taken. I have also put the blunder table and the list of special rules on a separate sheet. After a number of games I am now finding the rules flow very smoothly and I feel it is time to tinker with the Prussian army list - it just seems too much like a super army. Higher level officers and the reliable rule together means that the army runs like the Flying Scotsman, and I am seriously considering dropping reliable from all SYW units as it confers TOO great an advantage.
So to sum up - yes, the first few forays into Black Powder were somewhat confusing, but accepting it for what it is, coupled with a bit of legwork and playing a good few games, yields a fun and fast flowing game. Finally, the additional books are unnecessary. Any wargamer worth his/her salt can use personal research to customise the rules for a particular conflict or campaign.
Seven Years War Black Powder eye candy in 10mm:
(http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/g440/dourpuritan/10mm%20SYW/IMG_1440_zpsxr68sf3d.jpg)
Quote from: Leman on 01 May 2015, 07:58:10 AM
Ok, we're obviously talking about the Black Powder stable of rules, so here's my three 'appence. It does state very clearly at the beginning that it is NOT a set of hard and fast rules but should be approached as a toolbox. It will not suit DBX style players as it is not set in legalese or concrete (as I found to my ears' cost when my regular opponent saw me reading Pike and Shotte). The pictures are advertising a very attractive aspect of the hobby, and anything in there can be reproduced on a 6'x4' table using 10mm figures and cm instead of inches - we are lucky to be 10mm converts. The books have been written to give the feel of a friendly club evening rather than a competition, so I think they do what they have set out to do.
However (and there always is one) they are a high price and they have generated expensive follow on books. I was particularly disappointed with the C18th book as it was mostly scenarios outside the WAS and SYW. Yes, the chummy nature of the prose does mean you have to search out rules rather than seeing them in logical bullet point order, but at least BP has a decent contents page.
So how to enjoy the rules. The answer for me has been to treat them as that toolbox. I have produced a more detailed sequence of play with bullet points, army lists for SYW Austria and Prussia, which will need to change. On the reverse I have the specific rules for the SYW, such as unable to fire if more than one movement action taken. I have also put the blunder table and the list of special rules on a separate sheet. After a number of games I am now finding the rules flow very smoothly and I feel it is time to tinker with the Prussian army list - it just seems too much like a super army. Higher level officers and the reliable rule together means that the army runs like the Flying Scotsman, and I am seriously considering dropping reliable from all SYW units as it confers TOO great an advantage.
So to sum up - yes, the first few forays into Black Powder were somewhat confusing, but accepting it for what it is, coupled with a bit of legwork and playing a good few games, yields a fun and fast flowing game. Finally, the additional books are unnecessary. Any wargamer worth his/her salt can use personal research to customise the rules for a particular conflict or campaign.
Seven Years War Black Powder eye candy in 10mm:
(http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/g440/dourpuritan/10mm%20SYW/IMG_1440_zpsxr68sf3d.jpg)
I can't speak for anyone else but when I made my original comment I wasn't actually talking about any particular set of rules but the modern format in general, (I have only ever seen the cover of Black Powder).
Yes, the eye-candy is nice but nowadays it seems to be that some rules are just promoting a specific manufacturers figures so is nothing short of advertising.
Some magazines seem to be going down the same road. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to that kind of thing it's just that I prefer a range of topics to cater for a larger audience.
Leman - nice looking set up there, that is definitely 'eye candy' worth seeing. :-bd
Depends - I sometimes find the "fluff" annoying, but tbh if it's nice enough to read for its own value AND gets peoples attention, then I'm with it. Although if I could have a "rules only" copy and someone else buy the shiny one for me to borrow I wouldn't mind ;)
I wasn't thinking of any particular set of rules, just the current trend for rule books to be full of eye candy for no reason than to look nice and fill up pages.
I actually like BP and find it gives a nice game, but the actual playing rules are lost in the eye candy, this is made all the more infuriating by the lack of an index. All you need to actually play the rules is the short section near the end, but of course you couldn't sell that for thirty quid.
Well, in the spirit of the OP (Hates, loathes, detests, despises)...
If I've dropped £30 on a book that's 20 pages of rules buried in 180 pages of photos and fluffy prose...i'm NOT a happy bunny right there. >:(
Don't get me wrong, I like a bit of wargames porn as much as the next neckbeard, but when it gets in the way of the rules that hits all my hates, loathes, detests, despises buttons.
If you're going to include the eye candy, put in a 'resources and inspiration' section at the back, after and away from the stuff I actually bought the rulebook for...you know, the rules.
>:(
:D
Well said that man
Do what I did...
Paid less than £20
Having started wargaming with the WRG stable of books i soon discovered i hated their Ancient and Renaissance rule sets but enjoyed the Napoleonic, World War Two and Modern sets. Those books, as many here will know, had very little fluff (pencil drawings) but did explain some of their concepts, basing, move distances, etc. Their lists i still refer to today as a base to most of my armies.
The Warhammer Ancient rules made me paint my 25mm Ancient British army i had for 15 years and never finished. That must be good ?
The Black Powder rule stable compelled me to complete a 25mm ACW army which was over 15 years old.
It also forced me to combine my 12 figure battalion Napoleonics into 24s not sure i liked that.
Got to put my Sassanid Persian army on the table and use it, that was good.
Always liked Rapid Fire, more so in the smaller but greater 10mm scale
Never got on with Flames of War. . No sorry. Loved their models though.
The newer card propelled,generated, rules i have never played so reserve comment, however as a rule aquirer the lack of my interest in buying them tells me i,m not that interested.
Played DBA etc for a while need i say more?
Other hates, loathes, detests.... Warhammer 40k is a dislike, why would someone in the far distant future want to go to war with a sword? Na sorry.
Mounds of clutter on the gaming table, tokens, rules, dice, cups, there seems to be more and more tokens in the newer rules.
too many more to mention, will have to hate them all in silence.
As a consequence of the above I am currently painting casualties and routing troops to mark up disrupted and spent.
Those handfuls of dice on the table are another unwelcome sight for me.
Rulesets/data books so badly bound that they shed pages after a few week's usage. It's almost impossible to replace the leaves tidily. I'm thinking of a certain WW2, heavily marketed rule system in particular.
If the table doesn't have at least a couple of dozen dice, three or four tape measures, some casualty indicators, three coffee cups (one empty), a coke can, couple of beer cans, a quick ref sheet (or possibly two) and a minimum of two bowls of "nibbles" why on earth are you playing? :)
Quote from: Ithoriel on 03 May 2015, 12:51:05 PM
If the table doesn't have at least a couple of dozen dice, three or four tape measures, some casualty indicators, three coffee cups (one empty), a coke can, couple of beer cans, a quick ref sheet (or possibly two) and a minimum of two bowls of "nibbles" why on earth are you playing? :)
8) 8) 8) 8)
Quote from: Hertsblue on 03 May 2015, 09:30:56 AM
Rulesets/data books so badly bound that they shed pages after a few week's usage. It's almost impossible to replace the leaves tidily. I'm thinking of a certain WW2, heavily marketed rule system in particular.
Don't be bashful Ray - Name an Shame
..and blame and lame the game.
..... for there lies fame; unleash your shame.
Nurse! The screens!
Oooh! Are we going to watch a film?
Only the one forming on my cocoa....
Here we go again - forget the Snickers, someone pass me a Topic.
I hate gamers who abuse the measuring of movement distances, and then 're-arrange' their figures giving them another nudge forwards as they do.
I also hate gamers who throw their dice so quickly and then scoop them up before anyone has chance to read them gleefully announcing they threw whatever they needed.
You must know some real t**ts.