I never tinker with rules, nor do I use house rules. I think its because most of my gaming is solo. I have however taken bits and pieces from rulesets and then written rule sets for various periods only to never use them again.....
I often find that house rules are brought in where someone has won a particular argument - and before you know it the list grows and the rules become unplayable.
I have been watching the Bolt Action 2 development and when the new amendments were announced ther has been 32 pages of rants on the forum and the rules aren't even out yet.....
With that in mind....
1. Do you tinker?
2. Do you develop house rules
3. How much of 1 & 2 before you break your ruleset?
Not sure what the distinction between tinkering and house rules is.
I always play the rules as written many times over before coming up with house rules but regularly wind up with one or two amendments that are used when playing with friends.
If playing against those I don't know well I find it better to play the rules as written.
Can't say I think we've ever broken a set of rules as a result.
I don't like to mess about with rules. I do tend to get a bit hot under the collar when someone else insists on messing about with a perfectly good straightforward set of rules. In my experience they have stepped straight out of the 1970s and are miffed that the latest set of divisional level rules makes no allowance for if one of the mountain gun mules goes lame in the back left leg.
As a rule I don't tinker with any rules apart from the ones I have written myself...then I suppose it's tinkering from the very beginning.
MickS
I have been known to add the odd house rule - mainly to address some area that seems to be missing in a game, that seems to be important in some particular battle we are playing.
One of our group is always wanting to tinker with rules. Generally not to the better in the long term. The rest of us have become quite resistant to this, and would generally rather play rules as is. His favourite is to take any set of rules and make a fantasy version.
This went spectacularly wrong with Irregular Wars, which produces a great historical small battle game. It produces a rubbish big battle fantasy game. Much time was expended to to discover this, though it did help clear up a lot of thinking on our home brew rules.
One area I'm most open to tinkering is with points - if a unit is being over used it ought to cost more. As the players clearly value it more highly than the points assigned to it.
I do. SJ and I modify rules but only after playing the game a few times
Amendments include
Black Powder
Moves on command roll
Broken brigades
Turn sequence
They couldn't hit an elephant
Cleaned up firing results
IABSM
Cluster rule for small teams
Hidden blinds
Running away for teams on low dice
The only tinkering I generally do is to use a system for a different theatre / area / period, such as doing an ECW expansion for Sword and Spear, or using that same basic mechanic for a SCW game too.
We generally don't use house rules, but will add scenario specific rules.
Quote from: Ithoriel on 06 September 2016, 05:07:04 PM
Not sure what the distinction between tinkering and house rules is.
I always play the rules as written many times over before coming up with house rules but regularly wind up with one or two amendments that are used when playing with friends.
If playing against those I don't know well I find it better to play the rules as written.
Can't say I think we've ever broken a set of rules as a result.
Me, too. I like to keep house rules to the absolute minimum. If you have to tinker too much, the rules are probably broken to begin with.
1. Do you tinker?
Yes. I take tinker to mean fix upon a specific interpretation of a rule where there is ambiguity and information is not available from the designer. Tinker may also mean (for me anyway) making fine adjustments in certain tables to give slightly different effects.
2. Do you develop house rules?
Yes. I take house rules to mean a substantial re-write of some sections of the rules.
3. How much of 1 & 2 before you break your ruleset?
Break stuff all the time then move back toward the published rules until they seem to work again. e.g. I broke Baroque trying to do things it wasn't designed to do (what Leman just said). Several folks here and at the Impetus forum helped me understand this point.
I seem to have the opposite experience of Nosher. I play solo and muck around a lot. My experience of group play was trying to understand the rules as written (to prevent changes that would benefit certain players' units or armies.)
I tried for years to get DBR to be a more historical reflexion of reality and to compensate for some plain dam' stupidity. Improved it considerably, but gave up. I think getting together with like-minded and experienced friends who know a bit about the history involved and have no rival agendas, and then writing one's own, is the way to go.
Quote from: petercooman on 06 September 2016, 08:52:06 PM
We generally don't use house rules, but will add scenario specific rules.
Seconded :)
I write some of my own rules because I make a lot of use of hexes. Once a set is largely formed, every time I make a change, I read the entire text to see whether the change impacts on anything else. Although I play a bit loose and and fast with changes, I think if they are your own rules, then the changes come from the same mind and there is at least a continuity of thought and design philosophy and the end results are likely (hopefully) to remain a unified whole.
For those same reasons I tend not to modify commercial rules, but agree that scenario based special rules probably take care of that anyway.
I (and friends) have tweaked BKCII in terms of hits staying on, mortars causing auto suppression etc. To us this feels right and gives us a better game. Other games may get the odd tweak to fit in with our style of play. By and large they are minor and do not affect core mechanics etc.
In terms of Bolt Action 2, I was reading the review in the latest issue of WS&S and was gobsmacked (to say the least) that in the 1st edition many players didn't take a Bren gun for the British :o :o :o. To my mind something is seriously wrong when that happens :(.
1. Do you tinker?
I use my own ruleset. It is an mix of rule sets I have read, things I like to happen and quirks of history as I percieve them. For example a Chauchat has to roll 2+ before it can fire - just to see if it's broken down. Tiger tanks cannot engage anything moving that is more than 90o from the waty they are facing, because the turret traverse on a Tiger was very slow. Encourages those Cromwells to try and get to the flanks.
2. Do you develop house rules?
Hell yes. My favourite is the "Hollywood Hero" rule. In skirmish games it allows for a smaller force to have a nominated figure who can perform heroic deeds as per cinematic legend. A GI can charge a German MG post. Using the Hollywood Hero rule, they can attempt to ignore wounds or evebn death. If they don't make the roll then ... we play the sad music.
3. How much of 1 & 2 before you break your ruleset?
Not broken it in 30 or so years. However, it probably doesn't look much like it did 30 years ago.
In short, if you want combat with fixed and immutable rules, play chess or shogi. :)
I only add or tinker to give flavour to a scenario, even then it is only minor, most rules are well balanced after much play testing. The majority of house rules I've seen at clubs tend to favour the favourite army of the pushiest person there.
Cheers
Ian
These days, I tend to shy away from making tweaks and changes and fiddling, as pretty soon it ends up unplayable or grossly overbalanced and you have to tweak and twiddle and fiddle all the time in an endless faff.
I find we're more willing to look at the "big picture" and if it gives an over all game that feels in period, plays well and works then we just don't sweat the bits that previously we might have tinkered with. TBH most rules these days are well tested and written enough that over all they just work. Any that aren't/don't get junked ;)
That said there's a definite difference on "tool kit" style rules where the actual intent is to pick up whichever bits are appropriate for the period/theatre/armies and use them as needed (Pike and Shotte etc are good examples here), but tbh I think we tend to drop them anyway as you don't really know what works until you play a few games, which cuts into "actual" play time quite badly!
Quote from: Sandinista on 07 September 2016, 07:29:28 AM
I only add or tinker to give flavour to a scenario, even then it is only minor, most rules are well balanced after much play testing. The majority of house rules I've seen at clubs tend to favour the favourite army of the pushiest person there.
Cheers
Ian
Funnily enough, the only other house rule I can think of that I think improves S&S is that light horse with bow (Mongols etc) can fire all round rather than just straight ahead. I pushed for this one after quite a few HYW English vs Mongols fights, because the fights just weren't fair - my English were winning every time.
Tinker - as in "toss a whole new idea at an existing rule set?" -- not much. I will mess with my own play aids.
House rules I take more as a body of "case law" on parts of the rules where we have had interpretation issues -- pretty often.
Quote from: lentulus on 07 September 2016, 07:31:49 PM
House rules I take more as a body of "case law" on parts of the rules where we have had interpretation issues -- pretty often.
This can often be the case.
When I started playing Warmaster with my current group, they had some quite strange interpretations of some of the rules, which I think came from a quick read of them once, then playing the way they thought it was, rather than actually as written. This caused a few significant changes in game play - some of which the group never really got their heads around, as they had been playing the local way so long.
I've found this can happen with almost any game - but its often better to review these after the game, rather than trying to sort out the details in the middle of a game. I wonder if I come across as far too picky with some of the rules, but it seems that I'm able to read rules and understand them (often after a quick play though of a few key parts) unlike quite a few other people.
Quote from: Steve J on 07 September 2016, 05:56:06 AM
In terms of Bolt Action 2, I was reading the review in the latest issue of WS&S and was gobsmacked (to say the least) that in the 1st edition many players didn't take a Bren gun for the British :o :o :o. To my mind something is seriously wrong when that happens :(.
For some bizarre reason (and as much as I love Chain of Command), I keep coming back to Bolt Action for quick and dirty games where I have little time in which to squeeze a game in. I have slagged the game off (mainly due to firing ranges and the close combat mechanism which is appallingly poor).
However, I go for accurate forces based on real orbats rather than the power-gamers BA force which sadly is the norm among a lot of the BA gamers out there who are used to 40K lists.
Bolt Action In 28mm just looked and felt ridiculous. Played in 15mm it was good! There's bits I'd take issue with but I think you've covered the main point - aim to build something historical and it works out well. I'd also add ignore the scenarios - most of them end up very silly.
I think that's about the limit of my "tinkering" these days!
We play Warmaster regularly (usually once per week) and have slowly developed a few house
rules which we are all happy with. Nothing drastic.
I took part in a Warmaster Tournie in GW HQ a few years ago and came across a well respected
player who insisted that we adopt a certain house rule mid-game (this made a substantial
difference to a combat at a crucial stage). Being naive, I just went along with it. Its only a game
but it does still annoy me - not the time to introduce a change in the rules !
On a more positive side, our gaming group did learn quite a bit at the tournie (meeting fellow
Warmaster nuts, finding useful tactics and coming across different interpretations of the rules that
made us question what we thought we knew).
Phil
Hullo,
I do tinker a little bit, but usually I try to use existing mechanisms in the rules rather than invent new ones. For example, in (ACW) Longstreet we felt that it was too easy for cavalry to charge infantry, so we just applied the existing "Dense target" modifier to mounted cavalry to make them more vulnerable to fire and motivate the player to dismount. In some cases I have had to do quite a bit of work to make the rules to our liking, especially in the case of Force on Force, which were so poorly written that we had to do quite a bit of re-intepretation. We may have changed the intent of the authors, but there was no way for us to tell ;)
Cheers,
Aksu
Quote from: Glorfindel on 08 September 2016, 09:56:45 AM
I took part in a Warmaster Tournie in GW HQ a few years ago and came across a well respected
player who insisted that we adopt a certain house rule mid-game (this made a substantial
difference to a combat at a crucial stage). Being naive, I just went along with it. Its only a game
but it does still annoy me - not the time to introduce a change in the rules !
On a more positive side, our gaming group did learn quite a bit at the tournie (meeting fellow
Warmaster nuts, finding useful tactics and coming across different interpretations of the rules that
made us question what we thought we knew).
Phil
Oh dear, I hope that wasn't me!
It was interesting to see how others played and what armies they fielded. Also really nice to meet fellow Warmaster gamers and to put faces to names I'd seen regularly on WM forums.
As ever, I learned more from my defeats than my victories.
The tournies taught me many things, one of the main things being not to assume GW employees knew a damn thing about the rules they were supposed to be umpiring! ??? =) >:( =)
Quote from: toxicpixie on 08 September 2016, 08:34:50 AM
Bolt Action In 28mm just looked and felt ridiculous. Played in 15mm it was good! There's bits I'd take issue with but I think you've covered the main point - aim to build something historical and it works out well. I'd also add ignore the scenarios - most of them end up very silly.
I think that's about the limit of my "tinkering" these days!
We played in 15mm too, looked a lot better and made more sense with ranges etc. And of course much cheaper, especially when you include vehicles.
Crikey yes, one 28mm vehicle is about the same as an entire 15mm army :D
Quote from: toxicpixie on 08 September 2016, 01:16:20 PM
Crikey yes, one 28mm vehicle is about the same as an entire 15mm army :D
Why you should go to 10mm or even 6mm. We have been using 6mm for Team Yankee, looks good and works better.
IanS
If we didn't have a lot of legacy 15mm, and the models weren't so nice, I'd have gone 10mm. Much of my last few years of gaming has been going to 10mm or 6mm, and now 2-3mm :)
Quote from: Glorfindel on 08 September 2016, 09:56:45 AM
I took part in a Warmaster Tournie in GW HQ a few years ago and came across a well respected
player who insisted that we adopt a certain house rule mid-game (this made a substantial
difference to a combat at a crucial stage). Being naive, I just went along with it. Its only a game
but it does still annoy me - not the time to introduce a change in the rules !
Phil
You should try playing with the Game's designer. X_X
One lunchtime, at the Evil Empire. (Space Hulk being the game in question.)
My marines were kicking gene-stealers' bottoms VERY,
VERY hard.
Rule change...(mid throw)......Which
did get incorporated in the final version
O.K......The game
was in development stage....But I still felt a bit cheated when I lost. ;D ;D ;D ;D
Cheers - Phil
Phil, in my experience it's the only way game designers win their own games :)
I've played a number of game designers at their own games and been amazed at how regularly they lose!
Quote from: Ithoriel on 08 September 2016, 03:37:13 PM
Phil, in my experience it's the only way game designers win their own games :)
I've played a number of game designers at their own games and been amazed at how regularly they lose!
In a lot of cases, they've gone through a dozen variations in the rules as they playtest; they can't always remember which rules got jettisoned at an earlier stage.
Quote from: fred. on 07 September 2016, 08:03:58 PM
This can often be the case.
When I started playing Warmaster with my current group, they had some quite strange interpretations of some of the rules, which I think came from a quick read of them once, then playing the way they thought it was, rather than actually as written. This caused a few significant changes in game play - some of which the group never really got their heads around, as they had been playing the local way so long.
I've found this can happen with almost any game - but its often better to review these after the game, rather than trying to sort out the details in the middle of a game. I wonder if I come across as far too picky with some of the rules, but it seems that I'm able to read rules and understand them (often after a quick play though of a few key parts) unlike quite a few other people.
In WMF shooting units are listed for combat as 3/1 (say). However the shooting value is always 1. So when the wrote historical they just stated in the rules this, and listed just the combat value.
We'd been playing Historical with the Fantasy rules. Thus when we bought historical we didn't read the rules properly - even those of us who did, didn't because of that thing you miss one little change. We didn't notice this one until my Romans came up against Celts with machine gun armed chariots, as they had a value of Combat of 4. :'( :'(
>>Oh dear, I hope that wasn't me!
I'm sure it wasn't - but if so, all is forgiven !! :)
>>The tournies taught me many things, one of the main things being not to assume
GW employees knew a damn thing about the rules they were supposed to be umpiring!
>>You should try playing with the Game's designer.
My mate (who who was in the habit of winning every game against me), was not having
a good tournie but made up for it by breaking Rick. To him, this was better than winning
the trophy !
You do come across some strange habits as well - one chappie with a fantastic High Elf army
had an odd way of throwing dice. He would shake them up in his hands and then slam them
down on the table. Its an oddity the first time it happens but starts to hack you off after a
while. I lost focus on the game and just started thinking about the next 'slam'... Again, I
should have said something but kept thinking "Its only a game".
>>It was interesting to see how others played and what armies they fielded. Also really nice to
meet fellow Warmaster gamers and to put faces to names I'd seen regularly on WM forums.
Totally agree. There are great people and some amazing armies out there. I don't know if
anyone plays the game any more but it would be great to set up a small competition and see
if people are interested. Apologies for de-railing the thread !
Cheers,
Phil
is any scope for a new
All three all the time :d
I'm a solo gamer with a short attention span, games are dipped into rather than completed in one session.
DBA is one I hack to bits and I like DBn. Movement PIPs drive me nuts, low dice rolls can mean the entire evening getting off the base lines if the entire armies are not moved 'en bloc'. Recoil is another, units suffering a recoil a dozen or so times and still there. Now I just move everything I want to move for each side in the movement phase and each element only recoils the number of figures on the base, so 2Ps gets 2 destroyed on the second. As a result, games go faster and so far the gods of rules haven't made me suffer for it.
It suits me 8-}
It's fine so long as your opponent doesn't mind ;) ;D