I cannot claim any credit for what is posted below (much as I would like to have written it).
It has been copied (word for word) from the Facebook LADLG rules page, and posted by the rules author.
NB: a (much awaited) new addition of the the LADLG Ancients & Medieval rules (a current favorite of mine) was made available on the 19th April.
Having gone through the Errata phase after the release & publication of BKCIV I can heavily relate to the sentiments of the LADLG author :D
" I am often asked why the rules are so complicated; Here is the answer : !
In a bar I went to the bathroom, and there I noticed a sign:
"Employees should wash their hands.
I then began to imagine the questions that would be asked by wargamers:
- Which employees should wash their hands? the hands? The employees of this company? or those of any company?
- Do they have to wash them even if they are not on duty?
- Does this also apply to former employees? if so, for how long after the end of their contract do they still have to wash their hands?
- How often do they have to wash them? and how is it counted?
- Can I wash my hands elsewhere, or do I have to do it here?
- Should those who have already washed their hands before coming here start over?
- Can they wash their hands before going to the toilet? or during? or before and during? or only after?
- If they have to wash them after, how long after? Can I wash my hands two hours after using the toilet, or should I do it right away?
- If I have to do it right away, what if I want to do something else here? for example brushing my hair? Do I have to do this before washing my hands? or after ? and if I do it after, do I still have to wash my hands? and if so, how long after?
- Same question as above, in case I blow my nose?
- What if I blow my nose and brush my hair (in that order)?
- Which hands exactly should I wash? can it be someone else's hands?
- If two employees come in at the same time, can they wash each other's hands? or should everyone wash their own hands?
- Should we wash both hands? If so, in what order?
- I tried to wash one hand and not the other, but it is very difficult. Can you explain how to do this?
- What should I wash my hands with? With the soap that's here, and that stream of water? or can I bring other products? and if so, which ones?
- What if there is no more soap? does it still count as "washing"?
- And if it doesn't count as "washing" what happens next? If I haven't washed my hands, am I still an employee? Or does that terminate my contract, but then that would exempt me, paradoxically, from the obligation to have washed my hands. So the rule is contradicting itself!
- What happens if I don't wash my hands? who is checking? and how ?
- Are you going to quickly publish an Errata to cover all these issues? Because it is very annoying.
... And this is why the rules end up looking like this:
"Any employee of this company, on duty when using at least one toilet or urinal in this building, and whatever his other activities in this room, must - afterwards have completed everything he had to do in this room - wash his personal hands using the soap provided on this sink, before leaving this room to return to work. This without taking into account any hand washing that may have been carried out before. Failure to do this, even if not controlled, exposes the employee to being suspended or sanctioned (under the responsibility of the manager on duty at the time). "
In a follow-up response:
"To be frank, a lot of our thinking has been centered on "how are the English going to get around this?"
This last sentiment, I also relate to hugely as a rules writer - English wargamers are, by their very nature it seems - pedantic about rules. Wanting them to be 100% cast-iron in their meaning and intent, in every way and every circumstance possible (no matter how obtuse). This characteristic applies to a rule, even if the actual 'intent' of that rules wording is crystal clear. Which is very odd - IMHO - as English can be probably the most ambiguous language on the planet!
Anyway - I thought you might all enjoy it as much as I did - it made me laugh (in a mad uncontrolled & manic manner!)
Mark
You'd be quite impressed by the ways Latin, logical as it looks, can be ambiguous.
No Mark - it's cause Phil Barker was a health and saftey director at British Leyland. He also was addicted to multi clause sentances, lots of comas, covering several vital points.
It's hardly Barker's fault that wargamers try to bend & flex what's written down as much as possible. He may have written that way to try constrain them? I think that's the point of the OP.
;D ;D
Quote from: Big Insect on 24 April 2021, 09:41:45 AM
:
"Employees should wash their hands.
The problem surely starts with this not even being a rule in English. Phrased due to our Brit politeness, its an expression of wish made by an authority exhorting others to behave. Like : I should lose weight. I should stop buying 10mm figures that I wont live long enough to paint. People with Covid symptoms should isolate....
Maybe this is why those elderly players of WRG 5th in another thread stuck to it!!
Quote from: DecemDave on 24 April 2021, 10:40:25 AM
Maybe this is why those elderly players of WRG 5th in another thread stuck to it!!
No plyers of 5th left as far as I know, it's 6th they play, almost the ultimate set of "Barkerese" ever writ...
Quote from: DecemDave on 24 April 2021, 10:40:25 AM
;D ;D
The problem surely starts with this not even being a rule in English. Phrased due to our Brit politeness, its an expression of wish made by an authority exhorting others to behave. Like : I should lose weight. I should stop buying 10mm figures that I wont live long enough to paint. People with Covid symptoms should isolate....
Maybe this is why those elderly players of WRG 5th in another thread stuck to it!!
I couldnt agree more Dave - words such as 'should' have no place in rules or health & safety ;D ;D ;D
Have to agree with Raider4. There are some proper prats out there whose sole aim in life is to win at everything. Don't make rules complicated. If you come across one never play them again.
Quote from: ianrs54 on 24 April 2021, 09:46:41 AM
No Mark - it's cause Phil Barker was a health and saftey director at British Leyland. He also was addicted to... lots of comas,
You'd think if he was health and safety director, he'd want fewer comas, not more.
Or did you mean commas?
The OP was commatose!
Many moons ago, when the world was young, best beloved, I played a wargame whose rules suggested that if an event occurred that was not covered by those rules and if the players could not agree how the matter should be resolved that die rolls should be used to decide which interpretation be used, to keep the game moving.
My opponent spent fifteen to twenty minutes arguing how many of what type of dice should be rolled how often to come to the decision.
We eventually settled on best of three rolls of 2D6.
Never played them again.
;D ;D
I've always wondered if the games of the pioneers like Featherstone, Grant, Griffiths et al were quite as gentlemanly as their books (and rule sets) portray. Perhaps it was an ex services thing or maybe since there were only a handful of gamers in the country it paid to be nice.
And yet most of my games have been solo anyway. Is this a coincidence? :'( :'(
Quote from: Big Insect on 24 April 2021, 09:41:45 AM
In a follow-up response:
"To be frank, a lot of our thinking has been centered on "how are the English going to get around this?"
This last sentiment, I also relate to hugely as a rules writer - English wargamers are, by their very nature it seems - pedantic about rules. Wanting them to be 100% cast-iron in their meaning and intent, in every way and every circumstance possible (no matter how obtuse). This characteristic applies to a rule, even if the actual 'intent' of that rules wording is crystal clear. Which is very odd - IMHO - as English can be probably the most ambiguous language on the planet!
Mark
It's odd that anyone would think English (British?) wargamers are keen on rule precision. Back in the 'good old days' I can remember Brits finding the apparent overblown pedantry of American Boardgame rules hilarious.
You know; the numbered paragraphs (an excellent idea) and the weirdly precise description of everyday objects and actions (not) ?
'the attacker [see S.4.a.iv] throws a d6 [a regular cuboid of uniform density, each face of which is marked with a single integer from the set one thru six) in order to generate an attack value [see s4.b.xv]. The d6 should be thrown on a flat even surface and allowed to come to rest of its own volition, displaying one integer uppermost which will be the number used to generate the attack value.'
I can think of several English rule sets which now that pad their word count in this fashion for no apparent reason other than making it look like 'value for money'. :D
'Should' is advice in terms of H&S, so is not compulsory. 'Must' is an order and is compulsory. Oh the joys I had when I trying to implement my old company's H&S policy!
I heard a nice story from Stuart Asquith about Donald Featherstone when he was playing one of his ECW games. In short Featherstone made Haselriggs cavalry almost impossible to beat as he had them on his side and was quite happy with this state of affairs, despite everyone else disagreeing with him!
Back on topic, rules cannot cover every conceivable situation. I remember Rick Priestley writing one of his pieces in WS&S where a fellow games said he could shoot through his own units as it didn't specifically say he couldn't in the rules! I feel 'conpetition' type rules try to cover all bases and so end up being open to rules lawyers trying to exploit perceived loopholes etc.
I know quite a few (but by no means all) comments on lack of precision of a number of wargame rules come from American readers.
However it is incredibly easy to be unintentionally imprecise.
There's also a language thing. In my experience US English treats 'should' as 'must' and the UK and much of the rest of the world treats 'should' as 'it is recommended that'. So international standards (at least in my line of work) use 'shall' to mean 'must'.
Edward
Quote from: kustenjaeger on 24 April 2021, 05:30:29 PM
I know quite a few (but by no means all) comments on lack of precision of a number of wargame rules come from American readers.
However it is incredibly easy to be unintentionally imprecise.
There's also a language thing. In my experience US English treats 'should' as 'must' and the UK and much of the rest of the world treats 'should' as 'it is recommended that'. So international standards (at least in my line of work) use 'shall' to mean 'must'.
Edward
Very helpful insight Edward - I shall be a lot more precise in my own rules writing in future - no 'shoulds' only 'musts'
Suggested reasons.
1. Competition proofing (for the folks who enjoy that sort of thing), to lock out the rules lawyers.
2. There's a small minority who actually enjoy poring over pages of paragraph-free text, tables of tables, and glossaries the length of a Hayes manual. If asked they'll mention the "real world experience".
3. The perception of value: You get 200 pages and 7 supporting codexes (HHrmph! codices). It won't be staying simply with that page count.
4. Badly organised stream of consciousness more worthy of Ginsberg's poetry. Oh yes gentle reader, it is out there.
5. Loss of the focus. "I wrote a manageable set of Napoleonic rules, but then decided to stretch it for everything from 1600 to 1918. It increased the page count ten-fold, but was well worth the effort".
Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 24 April 2021, 07:16:52 PM
Suggested reasons.
1. Competition proofing (for the folks who enjoy that sort of thing), to lock out the rules lawyers.
I don't let the 'rules lawyers' play at my table.
Ambiguity of instructions with disastrous results is not unknown to history:
Lord Raglan wishes the cavalry to advance rapidly to the front, and try to prevent the enemy carrying away the guns. Troop of horse artillery may accompany. French cavalry is on your left. Immediate.
I was lucky enough many years ago to be one of Don Featherstone's Wargaming "Coven" in Southampton: the rules (one one sheet of paper) were typed and stapled to the ceiling for ease of reference. Any disputes that common sense could not resolve or a dice roll were settled by Don: wargames lawyers were not welcome and everyone had fun!
Quote from: parkerm17 on 25 April 2021, 08:44:59 AM
I was lucky enough many years ago to be one of Don Featherstone's Wargaming "Coven" in Southampton: the rules (one one sheet of paper) were typed and stapled to the ceiling for ease of reference. Any disputes that common sense could not resolve or a dice roll were settled by Don: wargames lawyers were not welcome and everyone had fun!
It sounds brilliant.
I can't imagine many of the hobby's founding fathers sticking around if they weren't having fun.
I'm sure they would have moved on and sailed model yachts, or flown gliders, of built incredible railway sets.
What so many of s newcomers forget is that the gaming alternatives at the time were Featherstone, Ludo, Monopoly or Snakes and Ladders.
And most people found Monopoly too complicated.
Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 24 April 2021, 07:16:52 PM
Suggested reasons.
1. Competition proofing (for the folks who enjoy that sort of thing), to lock out the rules lawyers.
2. There's a small minority who actually enjoy poring over pages of paragraph-free text, tables of tables, and glossaries the length of a Hayes manual. If asked they'll mention the "real world experience".
3. The perception of value: You get 200 pages and 7 supporting codexes (HHrmph! codices). It won't be staying simply with that page count.
4. Badly organised stream of consciousness more worthy of Ginsberg's poetry. Oh yes gentle reader, it is out there.
5. Loss of the focus. "I wrote a manageable set of Napoleonic rules, but then decided to stretch it for everything from 1600 to 1918. It increased the page count ten-fold, but was well worth the effort".
Let me add:
6. Amendments / errata - largely unavoidable. But if they reach half the page count of your rules, you need to re-assess your platesting methods.
7. Fan driven second / third / fourth .... editions where you fix their complaints (and introduce twice as many). Not to be confused with commercially driven second editions, where you change the introduction and pictures.
Rather cynical Mr Holmes.
Quote from: ianrs54 on 25 April 2021, 09:18:55 AM
Rather cynical Mr Holmes.
The Cynics are my favourite Later Hoplite Greek force.
Their distinctive abilities include:
* May call on Heracles as a Hero / Champion.
* Added missile saves because they live in barrels.
* Can see right through the ruses of their effete Theban and Athenian opponents.
;)
Meanwhile - Number 8: The aggregated 'special' rules form 36 issues of Pale Elf magazine.
You want cynical:
9. You get to issue a "players guide" with explanations and nice pictures at a higher price than the original ruleset
Mrs B's guide to DBA by any chance.
I will admit that I do try to break a rule set to see if there is anything wrong. There is for instance a major flaw in "Sound of the guns" which means that the British Lt cavalry can always break a square. {No I'm not going to tell you}
Quote from: ianrs54 on 25 April 2021, 11:11:38 AM
Mrs B's guide to DBA by any chance.
I will admit that I do try to break a rule set to see if there is anything wrong. There is for instance a major flaw in "Sound of the guns" which means that the British Lt cavalry can always break a square. {No I'm not going to tell you}
We used to play those at Uni.
Put me off Napoleonics for a decade.
Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 25 April 2021, 09:38:31 AM
The Cynics are my favourite Later Hoplite Greek force.
Their distinctive abilities include:
* May call on Heracles as a Hero / Champion.
* Added missile saves because they live in barrels.
* Can see right through the ruses of their effete Theban and Athenian opponents.
;)
Meanwhile - Number 8: The aggregated 'special' rules form 36 issues of Pale Elf magazine.
Do all your armies consist of plucked chicken models...
Quote from: toxicpixie on 25 April 2021, 11:55:54 AM
Do all your armies consist of plucked chicken models...
Funny you should mention that.
My "other gaming" (D&D) monicker is "Big Chicken Eating Steve".
The Dungeon Master is working on the number of chickens required for a balanced fight with an adult human.
One, as a man is a featherless biped so one plucked chicken = one man.
Now, if the chicken is armed...
Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 25 April 2021, 05:38:59 PM
My "other gaming" (D&D) monicker is "Big Chicken Eating Steve".
As in "Steve who eats big chickens" or "Big Steve who eats chickens?"
Asking for a feathered friend :D
Quote from: Ithoriel on 25 April 2021, 06:05:49 PM
As in "Steve who eats big chickens" or "Big Steve who eats chickens?"
This statement illustrates the OP perfectly.
Quote from: Raider4 on 25 April 2021, 06:51:05 PM
This statement illustrates the OP perfectly.
Well yes. A simple illustration would have made the meaning clearer
(https://i.imgur.com/pMMNBjv.jpg)
Quote from: DecemDave on 25 April 2021, 09:09:47 PM
Well yes. A simple illustration would have made the meaning clearer
(https://i.imgur.com/pMMNBjv.jpg)
Closest living relative to the T-Rex.
[ Warning: above statement liable to be pseudoscientific tosh ].
Yes indeed, its arms look too long.
I've always hated the name anyway; redundant, and an ugly mish-mash of Greek and Latin.
As Calvin would probably say, what's wrong with Terrifying killer dinosaur with huge claws and teeth?
Quote from: FierceKitty on 26 April 2021, 08:58:08 AM
As Calvin would probably say, what's wrong with Terrifying killer dinosaur with huge claws and teeth?
and teeny-tiny hands and arms
Quote from: FierceKitty on 26 April 2021, 08:58:08 AM
As Calvin would probably say, what's wrong with Terrifying killer dinosaur with huge claws and teeth?
English electric rock band is shorter and easier to say ;)
A few years ago, I was interested in a particular boardgame. i checked out the errata file, which was significant and I backed away from buying.
A few years later, I bought the game, there were few issues that I could see and when I read the errata, it turned out that someone thought it a good idea to put all of the Q&A into the file, even though some of it was clearly already written in the rules and while accepting the person asking the question may have been stuck on the point, there was no reason to suppose that the wider readership would have been.
In consequence, there was too much stuff in the Q&A file, meaning that the relevant stuff was just drowned out. Whoever authored the Q&A file thought they were doing good service, but that misplaced notion undermined the value of the file itself.
So side A of the coin concerns those who don't do well on the rules reading front
But this, side B of the coin, is balanced in equal measure by whether an author can properly pose and close each segment of the rules and whether enough accurate examples exist to ensure that ambiguity is ironed out. Equal is where the rules have been tested by a small group, where the author is always present and so the group 'know' how to play, but this doesn't translate into coherent rules to serve a wider audience as that group loses all sense of where ambiguity is..
Somewhere between A and B is where most rules seem to sit.
then there is the period expert who assumes that the rule is wrong!
Then there is the competitive player who is liberal with both rules and measurements.
What is one to do, other than to eventually settle with gamers who are closest to ones own gaming style / ethos.
Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 25 April 2021, 09:00:31 AM
7. Fan driven second / third / fourth .... editions where you fix their complaints (and introduce twice as many).
Urgh, yes. Seen this. Usually ends up a horrible mish-mash of styles, as bits fans like from other games are pulled in.
Quote from: Norm on 26 April 2021, 03:01:47 PM
A few years ago, I was interested in a particular boardgame. i checked out the errata file, which was significant and I backed away from buying.
A few years later, I bought the game, there were few issues that I could see and when I read the errata, it turned out that someone thought it a good idea to put all of the Q&A into the file, even though some of it was clearly already written in the rules and while accepting the person asking the question may have been stuck on the point, there was no reason to suppose that the wider readership would have been.
In consequence, there was too much stuff in the Q&A file, meaning that the relevant stuff was just drowned out. Whoever authored the Q&A file thought they were doing good service, but that misplaced notion undermined the value of the file itself.
So side A of the coin concerns those who don't do well on the rules reading front
But this, side B of the coin, is balanced in equal measure by whether an author can properly pose and close each segment of the rules and whether enough accurate examples exist to ensure that ambiguity is ironed out. Equal is where the rules have been tested by a small group, where the author is always present and so the group 'know' how to play, but this doesn't translate into coherent rules to serve a wider audience as that group loses all sense of where ambiguity is..
Somewhere between A and B is where most rules seem to sit.
then there is the period expert who assumes that the rule is wrong!
Then there is the competitive player who is liberal with both rules and measurements.
What is one to do, other than to eventually settle with gamers who are closest to ones own gaming style / ethos.
Well said Norm - I was thinking something similar but couldn't work out the right phrasing. A set of rules definitely needs to be able to stand up on what is written - rather than what is meant. And this is where a number of discussions can come from as players with different experience of other rules will have different starting points and different expectations.
Then you layer historical knowledge and expectations on top of this....
Let alone competitive players!
DBMM rules cover ship wrecked Elephants
Well there is a WRG set covering enraged bees and bears.....
I am thoroughly enjoying solo gaming. So liberating and leaving no desire to go back to club gaming. Social life much more fun down the pub than in a stuffy room with argumentative shouty old men.
Quote from: ianrs54 on 27 April 2021, 05:56:47 AM
Well there is a WRG set covering enraged bees and bears.....
Who won?
(https://cdn.waterstones.com/bookjackets/large/9780/6035/9780603565533.jpg)
I'm with you on this Andy as solo gaming or with a few friends at home I've found much more preferable than my old club, where a few members could eawith their remarks and behaviour :(.
Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 27 April 2021, 09:25:12 AM
Who won?
(https://cdn.waterstones.com/bookjackets/large/9780/6035/9780603565533.jpg)
I have no idea. To be fair it was in a seige supplement, and the bees and bears were supposed to be released in a tunnel.
I believe that for some tournament players, complication in a ruleset is actually a virtue. Certainly I have heard competition gamers at OWS say how they enjoy the challenge of mastering the rules. My impression is that they like the fact that by putting in the effort to understand all the wrinkles they can earn an advantage over a player who can't be bothered. It's not my thing, but I can see a logic in that.
In designing BBB I tried to strip out as much rule clutter as possible and make the rules as simple as possible so that players could concentrate on tactics (and fight a whole battle in an evening). Consequently, the BBB FAQ is more of an RAQ - rarely asked questions - and most questions seem to be hangovers from players' previous rule experiences: even though BBB doesn't require them to do X or ban them from doing Y, they assume that they must do X/can't do Y because that's how the other rules they've played operate. And that despite what the BBB rules clearly do state, and the examples given to illustrate how they work ...
As for restricting yourself to solo gaming because club members are irksome: I have to say that's a pity and you might be missing out. I'm sure that all of us are irksome to some of our fellow players, but by the same token (probably available from Litko in fluorescent plastic) there are wargaming soulmates out there for all of us. If you go to a club you give yourself more chance of finding them.
Quote from: ianrs54 on 27 April 2021, 05:56:47 AM
Well there is a WRG set covering enraged bees and bears.....
I own that army...
Are they like "Hostile Huns" ?
I think that was a WRG'izm - if there were 'hostile Huns' in your opponents army - all your troops knees turned to jelly and they became simpering nervous wrecks - or something similar.
Think thats 3rd or 4th edition. Given an almost 100% record with Huns in FoG I'm not surprised
Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 27 April 2021, 09:25:12 AM
Who won?
(https://cdn.waterstones.com/bookjackets/large/9780/6035/9780603565533.jpg)
The bees of course...
Quote from: Steve J on 27 April 2021, 09:27:21 AM
I'm with you on this Andy as solo gaming or with a few friends at home I've found much more preferable than my old club, where a few members could eawith their remarks and behaviour :(.
Quite agree with both of you. I haven't found a club I liked so, for several years now, it has been a mixture of solo games, which is where computer moderated rules work very well, or games with less than a handful of kindred spirits far away from a club environment.
Clubs have been at a bit of a disadvantage during these times of lockdown.
With home visits also banned I'm surprised there hasn't been more posted about solo gaming.
At its best, a club ought to provide a stimulating environment where there's plenty of other stuff going on to inspire.
That does require a bit of outreach by the established members, and a willingness for all to play outside their core rules and armies.
And that returns me to the subject of complicated rules.
If I were to roll up to a new club, to be told "We play (Ruleset X)" this could work out several ways.
* It's possible that I have previous experience of rueset X and utterly hated it.
* Maybe I have previous experience, and loved it, indeed I have armies (provided I match the scale and basing of teh club guys).
* If I've never encountered the rules before, it's a real problem if they are complicated, as it's difficult to join in a game without spoiling it for the others.
* If I've never encountered the rules before, but they are simple, I'd hope to be up to speed part way through a first game - and enjoying myself if the other players chip in with some handy advice.
But we all have different complicated thresholds.
As mentioned above, I think some players enjoy the page count and the potential for winning by being better read than your opponent.
Having grumbled about complicated rules, it's perhaps time to spare a thought for the poor beleaguered rules author.
I'm sure many of us have had a go at producing some rules; for use among friends, for the club, or that happy few who have been published.
Having gone there, one begins to understand how difficult it can be to explain simple things.
Movement seems simple, but try describing a move that involves wheeling around a small stand of trees, or deployment form buildings back into a fighting formation.
These descriptions tend to come at three levels:
* The one page set, that details moves, ranges and hit values, and leaves the rest to the players standard practice.
* The evolved club rules, which add a bit of details about flanks, manoeuvre, and work well while one of the co-authors is present.
* The professional job with clear description of most common situations and a running order that matches teh flow of teh game.
Level 3 is incredibly hard to master, probably the result of lots of practice.
But hats off to everybody who takes the first step on the journey; some will arrive.
The Berkeley Vale Wargames 'Club' has been a harsh testing ground for rules over the many years I have played with the members (ooo-er missus!).
We have some fine examples of home baked rules - with an excellent 5 figure gang 28mm Western game called 'Liberty' (using an ordinary deck of playing cards - long before Dead Mans Hand was published) - the rules are literally one side of A4 and the you can expect the wrath of all the other players if anybody tries to pull a fast one. The 'owner' of the game - Shaun - is also a sculptor and so the town is inhabited by an assortment of odd characters - like the homeless bag-lady (Teresa May) or the town drunk (Donald Trump) and extra points can usually be scored by gunning them down at first sight. The game usually revolves around acquiring bags of kittens - which Shaun has modelled up and which are scattered around the town. Each gang has to collect as many as possible and stay alive.
I have a gang of 5 appropriately painted up lady 'cowboys' - my Nolan Sisters gang - and there is a Brian May gang with highly decorative waistcoats - and a bunch of 'filthy' Mexicans you get the idea.
We have been known to play the game with appropriate country & western music on the juke-box in the pub - even wearing appropriate hats and moustaches ... you get the idea.
We play all manner of 'commercial' rules - but it is a pre-requisite that all of them are amended to incorporate a really good 'Recrimination Phase' at the end of each game. In fact the better a set is the more likely that the recrimination Phase might occur actually during the game or on several occassions during game play.
Chris - BBB and "reading rules that aren't there" - I've been guilty of that. "But it must be complex than it is!". Nope. That's actually been very helpful recently with Oathmark which sparked a lot of that discussion and shows why FAQs cover seemingly redundant obvious explained in the text stuff.
Because it isn't.
*You* may know what it means, and why it's structured like that, you're regulars and your play testers may know, but a lot of people just won't share your common assumptions. Commercial rules are a devil for that - incredibly hard to write the assumptions and background in without ending up unusably long and obtuse.
And that's before editing and proof reading and printing errors...
Eg in Oathmark, Giants lacked the Enormous keyword. Simple, obvious editing fail. Low to mid level Goblin heroes lack the Magic Item trait, unlike other races. Which looks the same, except... that's authors decision as they're both to weedy and cutthroat AND treacherous to be given/retain a magic item... zero way of knowing that unless answered...
Similarly the army lists say two war machines per territory granting them as an army list choice. Except halflings, which is written in the singular. It's doesn't say "two catapults", it's says "Catapult". I assumed exactly as written, many many others took the examples of *every other warmachine* and read into it that it meant two...
Perfectly clear and obvious text to me and about 25% of the player base, completely opaque and confusing to everyone else :D I may have been forewarned though as I'd made a similar assumption with Undead Chariots and that they should be a unit of "monsters"
So three of them make a unit. And nope, they're used singularly like other war machines :D
One feature common to a lot of successful "non complicated" rules is consistent mechanisms.
There mat be a way to resolve fighting, which can be applied in all fight situations.
A guaranteed route to runaway complication is to introduce different mechanisms based on situation.
* Here's the drill for a normal infantry vs infantry fight.
* This one applies when tanks are involved, it's different so if a combined arms situation you have to resolve 2 separate fights.
* Here's some stuff for aircraft, they don't show up frequently, but we're wargamers, so every game deserves a dogfight.
* And Artillery, not much of a game without bombardment - these are different to the other fighting rules.
By the second edition the poor beleaguered author's dealing with requests for boats, gliders, engineering vehicles, mines, wire, tunneling, street fighting.
Street fighting with boats and gliders and air support...
What did he do to deserve this?
The poor guy just left the "different mechanisms" door open and his players crashed right on through.
The last group I played with, back in Liverpool, were a great set of lads, but for Ancients and Renaissance were wedded to FOG, which I found more irksome to read than uni textbooks. Just could not get my head round why it was like that Russian block game of tesselation, and why on earth melees seemed to go on for ever, and wishing to god it would end and we could go to the pub. Anyway, when I left the UK I gave them all my FOG stuff and certainly won't be picking that up again, or anything similar.
Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 28 April 2021, 09:19:14 AM
One feature common to a lot of successful "non complicated" rules is consistent mechanisms.
And dice rolls. Roll high for success, roll low for success. Don't care which. But
pick one and stick to it.
Sorry, personal bugbear.
Yep changing from a high roll is bad to it being good is strange, when the former tends to be the norm. It makes swapping between rulesets even more awkward!
Leman, I didn't know you'd left the UK!
Agreed on FoG, really wanted to like it but eeeeesh, it was dull.
The rules are very clear and "legally worded" but it produces terrible games. Impetus on the other hand suffers from the translation, is quite non-obvious, but produces excellent games.
Yep agree on Impetus, but now find I prefer to play the Basic version as too much was added to the original over the years. I moved to Delfzijl in July last year before the escape tunnel collapsed. :d :d
Quote from: Steve J on 28 April 2021, 11:05:06 AM
Yep changing from a high roll is bad to it being good is strange, when the former tends to be the norm. It makes swapping between rulesets even more awkward!
I've often thought that would be an interesting survey, what is more intuitive to people, roll high for good or roll low for good.
To me rolling high for good always seemed more natural so that was something that always jars a little with me in the likes of Black Powder/Hail Caesar/etc, where you have to roll low for command but high for hits. Given they're different actions it's not too bad, but as my first introduction to wargaming it was a bit of a strange one. Same with "roll under" style games, making the flip to see the lower score as the good one.
I suppose that one virtue of high rolls being sometimes good, sometimes bad, is that it discourages the use of loaded dice. A mate used them against me once as a joke (it wasn't funny). But if your opponents use them routinely, you're probably playing with the wrong people.
Quote from: Chris Pringle on 29 April 2021, 09:53:02 AM
I suppose that one virtue of high rolls being sometimes good, sometimes bad, is that it discourages the use of loaded dice. A mate used them against me once as a joke (it wasn't funny). But if your opponents use them routinely, you're probably playing with the wrong people.
It also mitigates tendencies, however induced, to roll consistently high or low with the dice. I know of at least one set of home brew rules that uses high dice for a good outcome in combat and low dice for morale; it does not seem to be difficult for people to cope with and avoids arguments about how the dice 'hate' someone, even if you can claim your statistics show you always roll badly in all circumstances. ;)
Quote from: Leman on 29 April 2021, 08:28:27 AM
Yep agree on Impetus, but now find I prefer to play the Basic version as too much was added to the original over the years. I moved to Delfzijl in July last year before the escape tunnel collapsed. :d :d
Oh ho, now I have vague memories of that being mentioned by you somewhere! Good timing :)
I actually think I agree on Basic Impetus, it's just so much straightforward! Extra chrome is seldom worth it.
We are aware that dice are inanimate objects aren't we? Despite this I have a friend who always plays a game with at least three sets of dice to hand. If he rolls a succession of 1s he changes the set of dice claiming the previous set must be broken. Bizarre!
Hush, your dice will hear you! Don't hurt their feelings or you're doomed!
On a different note, I've disappointed many at my club with an insistence that I don't want cool shiny sparkle whatever effect dice, and just want high contrast, easy to read ones, that show up legibly at table distance under whatever lighting condition we're in. Pretty dice are great, but no good if neither me nor you can read the feckers... slows games up and even if not, errr, "misrepresenting" what's rolled, the "it's a .... six, not a three, no wait, hang on..." is really bloody hard work.
Quote from: Leman on 29 April 2021, 01:31:22 PM
We are aware that dice are inanimate objects aren't we? Despite this I have a friend who always plays a game with at least three sets of dice to hand. If he rolls a succession of 1s he changes the set of dice claiming the previous set must be broken. Bizarre!
I know someone who insists on replacing a die that rolls any good '6' on the grounds he wants to win by 'skill' not luck! :D
*blink*
O... k...
Quote from: toxicpixie on 29 April 2021, 01:38:49 PM
Hush, your dice will hear you! Don't hurt their feelings or you're doomed!
Make your dice fear you! Punish the bad ones with a visit from the sledgehammer! Make sure all of the others witness this!
Quote from: Leman on 29 April 2021, 08:28:27 AM
Yep agree on Impetus, but now find I prefer to play the Basic version as too much was added to the original over the years. I moved to Delfzijl in July last year before the escape tunnel collapsed. :d :d
I remember reading through Basic Impetus.
I thought "This has hit the ideal spot between simple and feeling credible".
Then I flipped the page to the missile weapon rules. Noooooo!!!
Quote from: hammurabi70 on 29 April 2021, 02:54:52 PM
I know someone who insists on replacing a die that rolls any good '6' on the grounds he wants to win by 'skill' not luck! :D
The "Retreat form reason" continues, without a hope of a rally.
Quote from: Big Insect on 27 April 2021, 04:05:42 PM
and there is a Brian May gang with highly decorative waistcoats - and a bunch of 'filthy' Mexicans you get the idea.
Badgers? we don't need no stinking Badgers
Quote from: Raider4 on 29 April 2021, 06:17:37 PM
Make your dice fear you! Punish the bad ones with a visit from the sledgehammer! Make sure all of the others witness this!
;D ;D ;D
My dice wish to surrender to you now, Great Lord.
Don't even get me started on dice.
Having dipped a toe in the world of Role Playing Games (RPGs), I receive a tremendous amount of hobby spam.
I'm fascinated by the volume of "Dice kickstarters" - hopeful entrepreneurs who expect to make their millions by selling D&D dice.
I'm more intrigued by the low priority given to readability in these designs.
* Dice with the numbers written in elvish script.
* Transparent dice with little dragon figures inside.
* Transparent with reversed numbers so you read the result form the bottom face.
Roleplaying combat (essentially fencing) is already incredibly slow moving.
The last thing we need are dice that take an age to read.
Rant over...
Good old white dice with black numerals work for me! The odd use of other coloured dice for certain situations may occur, but 99% of the time these are perfect.
Useful to have contrasting colours for competing rolls.
Quote from: FierceKitty on 30 April 2021, 11:36:36 AM
Useful to have contrasting colours for competing rolls.
Warlord's Erwon requires it.
Quote from: FierceKitty on 30 April 2021, 11:36:36 AM
Useful to have contrasting colours for competing rolls.
Helps with solo play too, so you can tell the sides apart more easily when rolling for all. Picked up a multi-pack of packs of coloured dice when I started getting into the hobby (black, white, green, red, etc) with black or white pips which does the job for most things.
I do have an assortment of "rpg" style dice (d10s, d20s etc) where again I just went with a cheap multipack, though some of those have a mottled effect rather than solid colours, unfortunately. But they still have big white numbers on them so easy enough to read. I can understand people wanting dice with a bit more weight and heft to them, and feel good in the hand and to roll, particularly with rpg gamers, but certainly some of the designs are a bit mad and obscure.
The only "hard to read" dice I have is a set of small mottled green dice with yellow pips, intentionally so to act as subtle markers for ammo/casualties.
There is a solution to all this dice stuff - don't use the damned things.
Quote from: John Cook on 30 April 2021, 01:10:14 PM
There is a solution to all this dice stuff - don't use the damned things.
But that's half the fun! If you take away the tactile aspects of the game you may as well just be playing a video game. I played plenty of strategy computer games in the past (and spend most of my day on a computer screen these days) so it's nice to get away from screens and play a game with some more physical objects like models and dice or cards.
Dice are the avatars of the Elder Chaos Gods and must be propitiated with prayers, supplications and libations of appropriate alcoholic or caffeinated beverages! :D :D :D
As long as you can read them quickly and easily, I don't care :D
But feel free to send any beer related sacrifices my way, ta ;)
I just want dice like Sunjesters.
On a D6 If you want high rolls 90% of the time you get 5 or 6 , if you need low rolls (0% of the time you get 1 or 2.
Don't ask me how it works - If you borrow his dice they do the exact opposite!
Quote from: mmcv on 30 April 2021, 01:17:48 PM
But that's half the fun! If you take away the tactile aspects of the game you may as well just be playing a video game. I played plenty of strategy computer games in the past.
If throwing dice is really "half the fun", try Snakes and Ladders, it is much cheaper that wargaming:D There are many more tacticle aspects to conventional wargaming than dice I'd say and other means of generating random numbers, or chance, which is all dice do. To each their own but, for me, the angst that dice seem to generate make them more trouble than they are worth.
The frustration is not the dice but the apparent partiality of results ... which is the same whatever random method you use, in my experience. At times it feels as though the gods of the RNG are against you.
But the alternative is the sterility of games like chess or draughts.
I'll live with the frustration, thanks. :)
Quote from: Ithoriel on 30 April 2021, 06:49:40 PM
The frustration is not the dice but the apparent partiality of results ... which is the same whatever random method you use, in my experience. At times it feels as though the gods of the RNG are against you.
You've made me feel very old Mike.
I remember my early days in computing trying to make a wargames program. There was no such thing as a RNG option so I had to create my own. I took the least significant number of the system clock, turned it into an integer, recycled it if it was less than 1 or greater than 6 and voila you have a dice result.
This would have been sometime in July-December 1968.
Jim
Quote from: Ithoriel on 30 April 2021, 06:49:40 PM
The frustration is not the dice but the apparent partiality of results ... which is the same whatever random method you use, in my experience. At times it feels as though the gods of the RNG are against you.
But the alternative is the sterility of games like chess or draughts.
I'll live with the frustration, thanks. :)
Therein lies the problem. Dice can throw up unacceptably extreme and inconsistent results, far too often, which is one reason stopped wargaming for a while in the late 80s. As for chess being sterile, I just give up ;D
My definition of a good game is one that is easy to learn but hard to master, that I win because I am skillful but lose because I was unlucky.
I found chess dull beyond belief despite winning far more than I lost. It has no soul.
Quote from: Ithoriel on 01 May 2021, 01:56:20 AM
My definition of a good game is one that is easy to learn but hard to master, that I win because I am skillful but lose because I was unlucky.
I found chess dull beyond belief despite winning far more than I lost. It has no soul.
There are a lot of clever people who might not entirely support you in that opinion.
Quote from: FierceKitty on 01 May 2021, 02:30:43 AM
There are a lot of clever people who might not entirely support you in that opinion.
=D> =D> =D>
Not having bothered to read through the rest of the replies to me the answer is simple it is to try and thwart the "RULES LAWYERS" those persons who if it "isn't in the rules " will try totwist things to their advantage.
Quote from: Ithoriel on 01 May 2021, 01:56:20 AM
My definition of a good game is one that is easy to learn but hard to master, that I win because I am skillful but lose because I was unlucky.
I found chess dull beyond belief despite winning far more than I lost. It has no soul.
I once played in a many against an internetional master (chess event).
After the games he stayed behind to answer questions and chat in general.
Most of the talk went over my head "Strengths of the Sicilian Bishop", "Capablanca's opening in the third Paris game".
One bit that stuck with me, and applies to many other fields of learning was "fluency".
At come point just after "Master" the players stop thinking in terms of rules, and simply visualise the board as an extension of the world.
I compared it with trying to learn a language, where you'll be head down in a book agonising whether soap is masculine or feminine, but after 6 months in country, you're happily chatting away, making the odd mistake, but no longer thinking about the book.
I suspect this is the point where you look into the soul of chess.
If you're prepared to put in the hard work.
(Is it worth it?)
Quote from: FierceKitty on 01 May 2021, 02:30:43 AM
There are a lot of clever people who might not entirely support you in that opinion.
I'm with you on that FK. Ditch water is far more fascinating.
Quote from: Leman on 01 May 2021, 11:04:44 AM
I'm with you on that FK. Ditch water is far more fascinating.
Yes that is fascinating. What are the forum expert painters recommendations for 10mm ditch water on bases? I've tried various combinations at larger scales of various colours and lots of clear gloss but I'm not happy with the results.
I suppose a good rule set should allow for the variations of the chance to fall within mostly expected parameters so the abject failures and absolute successes feel more dramatic.
Regarding chess and the like, it's a very different game, decision making is absolute in that as there is no friction beyond that brought by the opponent and your own skill level. So can see how that appeals to those who are drawn to the "static" patterns and complete information of the game state.
When I'm in the mood for abstract games like that I usually find I end up gravitating to Go as giving an element of that while still allowing a lot of creative freedom. It does fit well the easy to learn difficult to master mantra.
As for snakes and ladders... ;D There are a lot of board and video games that fall into similar traps, reducing the decision making and elevating the chance too much. I'm sure there's wargames the same. It's all about finding that sweet spot between decision making, information availability, control and friction that makes a good set of rules. So you're playing the battle, not the rules.
Quote from: FierceKitty on 01 May 2021, 02:30:43 AM
There are a lot of clever people who might not entirely support you in that opinion.
And that matters to me how, exactly? (not just talking about chess - applies to anything)
Quote from: DecemDave on 01 May 2021, 11:22:11 AM
Yes that is fascinating. What are the forum expert painters recommendations for 10mm ditch water on bases?
Don't use blue!
Quote from: Raider4 on 01 May 2021, 11:53:09 AM
And that matters to me how, exactly? (not just talking about chess - applies to anything)
I have a suspicion that FK was not addressing you exclusively.
Quote from: Nirnman on 01 May 2021, 08:08:46 AM
Not having bothered to read through the rest of the replies to me the answer is simple it is to try and thwart the "RULES LAWYERS" those persons who if it "isn't in the rules " will try totwist things to their advantage.
Indeed so. That is the bane of most clubs, in my opinion. The only club I've ever known where that wasn't the case was the group I belonged to in Germany thirty years ago which comprised a dozen members, all military from a colonel (late REME) to an RAF corporal, and just about every rank in between.
There is also a complaint here, it seems, that dice are unreliable generators of random numbers because they are, somehow, partial. I'm not sure that is possible for dice to favour one side over another, but it is certainly the case that most cheap commercially produced dice are biased because they are not uniformly dense. This applies to standard dice, particularly the ones with rounded edges, and even more to those with multiple, ten or more, sides.
A simple way to test them is to float them in a salt water solution and see what side they tend to return to after you've agitated them. If they return to that same face more often than not they are not fair dice. I tried this years ago in an attempt to produce a set of fair dice and found that so-called razor dice (sharp edges) used in casinos were far and away the fairest. You get what you pay for – a set of half a dozen good casino-standard dice can cost up to £15. But, even those produce bizarre and, frankly, unrealistic random results sometimes. But, that is what they were intended to do in a gambling context – they were not intended for wargaming so one can't really complain.
So, if you must use dice, use casino-standard razor dice and make sure that every throw is on the same surface – that makes a difference too.
I suspect there's a certain element of tongue in cheek when it comes to complaints over dice rolls, and if not, then someone is probably taking things a little too seriously! I'm sure there are some of those out there. Granted I'm speaking as a mostly solo gamer or when playing with others taking an approach of what makes sense and is fun over rule precision.
Quote from: John Cook on 01 May 2021, 12:23:22 PM
I have a suspicion that FK was not addressing you exclusively.
Yeah, I get that ;)
I just fail to see how what other people think - even if they are clever - affects me - or you, or anyone else - when we're talking about a subjective opinion.
e.g. If I think that the Ramones are world's greatest ever rock band, it really doesn't matter
to me if an enormous amount of people disagree.
Same with chess. I have an opinion on it's worth and enjoyment factor. Doesn't matter if everyone else agrees or disagrees.
Quote from: John Cook on 01 May 2021, 12:26:39 PM
So, if you must use dice, use casino-standard razor dice and make sure that every throw is on the same surface – that makes a difference too.
And replace them often! I understand that they're quite brittle, and the straight edges will get chipped & rounded.
Quote from: Raider4 on 01 May 2021, 06:20:04 PM
Yeah, I get that ;)
I just fail to see how what other people think - even if they are clever - affects me - or you, or anyone else - when we're talking about a subjective opinion.
e.g. If I think that the Ramones are world's greatest ever rock band, it really doesn't matter to me if an enormous amount of people disagree.
Same with chess. I have an opinion on it's worth and enjoyment factor. Doesn't matter if everyone else agrees or disagrees.
Well, if this was a forum about rock bands, then your opinion, in the context of the Ramones, would certainly be of interest in a discussion about their relative status in the ranking of rock bands. As I have no interest in the subject, I might read it but would remain silent and pass no comment.
Ramones...
We talking Hard Rock, Classic Rock or Prog Rock?
It depends on the context.
In my opinion entirely they should rate highly because of the energetic foundation of the Punk movement and the development and inspiration of many bands after.
Top 20 certainly: Higher than the Pistols, behind Zed Lep and Floyd, but its all subjective.
I'll take the hard place.
Quote from: John Cook on 01 May 2021, 11:18:15 PM
Well, if this was a forum about rock bands, then your opinion, in the context of the Ramones, would certainly be of interest in a discussion about their relative status in the ranking of rock bands. As I have no interest in the subject, I might read it but would remain silent and pass no comment.
/Sigh.
The point was my, or yours, or anyone's, opinion on anything subjective should not be influenced by whether many others share it or not.
10mm Ditchwater?
I would recommend Mod Podge, which looks like a thick PVA glue but dries clear with a reflective surface or, if you've not much to do, just apply PVA glue with a brush and let dry. If you get the base colour right it looks very effective; I use Miniature Paints No.88 "Umber" as my base colour.
Quote from: DHautpol on 02 May 2021, 10:56:13 AM
10mm Ditchwater?
I would recommend Mod Podge, which looks like a thick PVA glue but dries clear with a reflective surface or, if you've not much to do, just apply PVA glue with a brush and let dry. If you get the base colour right it looks very effective; I use Miniature Paints No.88 "Umber" as my base colour.
Thanks. Not heard of that before so Mod podge duly ordered. I'll try a base of liquitex umber ink as that will automatically give various shades as I get on my 10mm horses. Its true I don't have much to do which is why I am painting 2 ECW armies (just reached the wagons and sheep), and planning 2 WOTR/HYW ones, about a thousand peninsular non-Kickstarter, drawerfuls of other napoleonics and a collection of 1/72 plastics built up over decades!! I might call myself a wargamer but a closer description would be "collector of unpainted minis" prefaced by words like eccentric, hopeless, .. :)
Quote from: Raider4 on 02 May 2021, 10:08:21 AM
/Sigh.
The point was my, or yours, or anyone's, opinion on anything subjective should not be influenced by whether many others share it or not.
Couldn't disagree more. Other people's opinion are often valuable.
Other peoples experience and research may be valuable, their opinions aren't worth spit, IMHO, ..... mine included. :)
Quote from: Ithoriel on 02 May 2021, 06:39:53 PM
Other peoples experience and research may be valuable, their opinions aren't worth spit, IMHO, ..... mine included. :)
I think you probably underestimate yourself. :) It depends on how that opinion was arrived at does it not?
An informed opinion is a judgement derived from critical thinking. It is the rational conclusion to an argument based on the analysis of the evidence used to support it. It is what everybody does on a daily basis, even if it is just a simple mental process, such as determining if it is safe to cross the road, for example.
An uninformed opinion, on the other hand, is as you describe, though it can be thought provoking and a basis of discussion on forums, like this one, and elsewhere, even, I suppose, as a premise for an argument that leads to an informed opinion.
Quote from: DecemDave on 02 May 2021, 11:44:52 AM
Thanks. Not heard of that before so Mod podge duly ordered. I'll try a base of liquitex umber ink as that will automatically give various shades as I get on my 10mm horses. Its true I don't have much to do which is why I am painting 2 ECW armies (just reached the wagons and sheep), and planning 2 WOTR/HYW ones, about a thousand peninsular non-Kickstarter, drawerfuls of other napoleonics and a collection of 1/72 plastics built up over decades!! I might call myself a wargamer but a closer description would be "collector of unpainted minis" prefaced by words like eccentric, hopeless, .. :)
I use Woodland Scenics E-Z Water (tm) C1206 - it comes as granules that you melt (I use old fast-food tinfoil containers that I heat the granules in - over a gas flame). But it is not cheap @ £15.75 for 473mL - but it goes a long way. When melted you quickly pour it into the puddles or ditch and it sets hard in seconds. It melts as a clear 'liquid' and as long as you don't over heat it, it is relatively bubble free.
What I usually do to represent muddy water is mix in some Dulux Kitchen Grease Proof 'Cookie Dough' coloured paint - which I put into the the foil tin just as the granules turn to liquid when heating them (I use Matt paint as I can then also use it to paint the mud on the banks). If you put a small amount of paint in and stir once quickly - you can (with experimentation) get an effect of mud swirling in the water. You can build up depth by adding layers - there are no visible lines between the layers. I have used it to good effect to embed items in it
(NB: I will add a photo later)
For larger muddy rivers I just paint the river section with the Cookie Dough coloured paint and then apply a few layers of gloss floor varnish to the surface - if you want some depth to the river you can use stained wood varnish with more layers painted on the deeper parts.
NB: .... how did a thread on wargames rules get onto ditchwater ???
Quote from: Big Insect on 04 May 2021, 11:49:10 AM
(I use old fast-foot tinfoil containers
NB: .... how did a thread on wargames rules get onto ditchwater ???
1) how fast is your foot Mark
2) Styandard thread hijack.
I could have answered this on page 1 - I write em !!!
Quote from: ianrs54 on 04 May 2021, 12:19:01 PM
1) how fast is your foot Mark
Fast enough to modify/edit the post Ian ;D
(I am footbedexterous)
Quote from: Big Insect on 04 May 2021, 11:49:10 AM
NB: .... how did a thread on wargames rules get onto ditchwater ???
The fault was mine. Someone posted that something was as interesting as ditchwater and it triggered my question. I now recognise I should have started a new thread.
But thanks for the detailed and expert method.
Dave - don't worry 'appens all ut time ! DON'T DO IT AGAIN ;D ;D ;D
Oh yes I will ;)
Edward should shall mean must?