Pendraken Miniatures Forum

It seems to me that, particularly over the past 3-4 years there's been an absolute glut of rules, for all periods, hitting the market.

I've bought a fair few and have been disappointed that they are all ostensibly the same, with very little variation in the basic premise that put forwards (similar level of abstractions, focus on 'game', little attempt at 'modelling reality', etc.). 

They also all seem to be reflections of a theme with the GW style simple skirmishing model predominating many sets.

I've not come across anything truely inspiring for some time and have actually stopped buying rules because of this, except where i've seen something new (to me) that seems genuinely interesting.

In this vein i'd cite:

Malifaux - very interesting skirmish rules but ultimately gimmicky, limited, and 'broken' in terms of the balanced tourney play its designed for.

Dystopian Wars - Very interesting VSF naval game with some solid mechanics that remind me more of roleplaying game mechanics ('exploding' dice pools).



So...ramblingly stumbling to my point, what do you chaps think? 
Are there too many rulesets out there now? 
Do you buy rules only to never play them as they're basically inferior copies to other rules you've already done? 
Is it good there are so many rules being published?
Have you found any truely innovative rules lately?
Do you think the current focus on gamist abstraction is good or bad?

:-\

Disagree 100% with just about everything you've said there.  Some absolutely fantastic sets of rules have come out in the past couple of years, several which are really rather innovative with their mechanics.

For a completely new take on the skirmish genre see Saga and Impetus is quite different to any other set of ancient mass battles rules out there. 

Other personal favourites are the steady stream of innovative rules from TooFatLardies, Muskets & Tomahawks and Force on Force. 

My issue is that a series of once rather good rules (DBMx, Principles, VandB, WHaB and even Flames) have all reached the end of their dominance of the market, leaving some fairly major unhesitatingly massive vacuums in the market, and as nature abhors a vacuum, and as new rules are published more easily in glorious technocolour, than those horrific photocopied rules we all used in the 80s and 90s; meaning it has become more difficult to settle into one set of rules that everyone agrees on...
Try looking at MKWS on an average night, constantly 20 plus members, when I first joined in the 90s therewould be 3 or 4 rule sets being played, now we can have ten or more different sets being played!
I took a count two years ago, despite  playing two rule sets at least once a month I played something like 13 different rules!
I think that we are seeing a good thing in wargames, better editorial control, better quality rules, more variety, but nothing revolutionary that has really blown everyone out the water like the original DBA did to wrg 7th!
I'll be interested to see what will happen in the next few years! :)

Must agree that there are far too many which seem throwbacks to the dark days of Grant and Featherstone, with endless dice, individual figure movement that renders real battles unthinkable, and illustrations taking priority over authenticity.

Yup, agree.  I'll stay with DBx and HOTT with their many variants.  I really don't buy this stuff that so-and-so's new rules give the real flavour of warfare in a particular period.  How do they know?  Were they there?  Such is the power of marketing.  IMHO  ;)

Having come back into the hobby 3 years or so ago after a 20 year gap I do think there are an awful lot of rules out there, most I've not played. It can be a little frustrating trying to find a set that most at the club are happy to play. I do wonder at times at the people who condemn a rule set as being unrealistic, what are they looking for? I have seen some rules with so many cross referenced charts I feel I need a maths degree to understand them. We were chatting in the bar after the games club last week and playing a game using WRG's 5th edition ancients was mooted, as all had said they enjoyed them back in the day.

Basically, all I am after is putting my toys on the table, moving them about a bit, having a bit of banter and a beer with my opponent and ending the evening wanting to do it all again

Luddite has a point. Loads of stuff indeed but most is mediocre at best.

Basic problem: Someone who does not CARE about wargaming (or just about a few aspects HE/SHE likes) writes a ruleset to make money.

Some are easy to spot (pdfs carrying the pricetag of a HC book, continous "updates" and "supplements"...) but others hide well and you are just disappointed you wasted your time and money there.

Solution: Follow reviews, check free QS rules, contact the developers...


I play a lot of rulesets and look at a lot of Minis because I like variety. I play Urban War (great, realistic ruleset and highly strategic), Starmada (Spacegaming rocks) and I want to have a look at FWC. Distesting the moneymaking machinery attitude of a majour player in the business I am happy how I got into Pendraken and now another scale through Nik.

What I did, almost 300 years ago I think, I asked Leon and Dave if they had pics of the SciFi range. They told me nope but told me of Niks wiki where I can see some stuff. They also explained the "cast to order" process and I placed my first order some time after that.  I have never regretted this investment.

Should Pendraken decide to carry a ruleset I am sure it will be a good one, just because all stock they carry is great.

Sandinista,
I wish more people had your attitude to gaming, and my one regret about going to a club out of town is the beer opportunities are SO limited as I refuse to even consider drinking and driving!

To be honest I think most rulesets are now variations on a theme

Thinking of just a couple of the rulesets you have mentioned, Impetus for one is very similar to Vis Bellica and Armati in what it trys to portray, although I enjoy Impetus I still think that Vis Bellica is a better game, you could argue that the Two fat lardies stuff is just another card driven game, IABSM reminds me a lot of Western And Eastern Tank Leader board games by West End games

I think these days with the internet it gives companies a bigger shop window to sell their wares and people look to see what the new shiney ruleset is without wondering if the one there using is any better.

Although
I have never played Black Powder or Hail Ceaser have these games become popular just because of the author and minis company associated with them or are they any really any better than the rulesets that have gone before

I wish I could have all the money back for rules I have bought, tried a couple of times and then Ebayed them!

All wargamers fancy a change of period now and again (or every day even) and most wargamers are not backwards in voicing opinions as to the best set of rules for a period or unit size etc and all the 'static' thus generated is very confusing when trying to assess which rules to use for a new period/project.

It does baffle me how many gamers, having finally managed to settle on a specific set for a period, are then so easily swayed into trying a new set for the same period when they were quite happy with the one they owned! 

I am always amused by instant queries made when new rules come out, like - yes, I know they are for Napoleonics but how can I tweak them for an earlier or later period?

Whilst we will never all agree on everything (God forbid) it may be helpful to all and sundry if we could have a permanently updated poll running - firstly agreeing on the 'period labels - Ancient, Med, Ren - etc and then each of us voting for our current favourite..........this way we would build a sort of database of rules that people like (even if only one vote) and also which set is the most popular.

How about it brethren?  Is there some way a continous poll could be set up Leon?  In time old chap, I realise you are very busy!

The BP and HC popularity was partly due to them being a set of rules similar to warmaster but also because initially it was based on the players actually going off and doing their own research!

Just to throw a manufacturer point of view in here, as designing and publishing rules is something we'll be doing one day (don't ask for timescales though!), and we're faced with a similar debate here. 

Does a company look at the most popular rulesets already on the market, and try to make something similar?  The current market shows that they would be accepted as a viable ruleset, they would sell, and they would also be easier to produce.  But would that just be overstuffing the overstuffed market?

Or, do they instead go down a completely different route, and try to create something original and unique, with a mechanism/engine that's not been used before?  We'd have no idea whether they would sell, what we think is a USP could kill them dead in the water.  They would require a lot more work, more playtesting, more careful tweaking, and definitely more marketing/promotion on release, to get people to take a chance on them.

Looking at it that way, it's easy to see why a lot of people produce rules loosely based on previously popular sets, as it makes good business sense.

Ok my tuppence worth, what makes a good set of rules

0) nearly forgot this one, should be period specific, not like BP. if its an ACW set then its an ACW set ONLY
1) All in one book, like BKC, intro, rules, lists, no supplements.
2) Simple, chuck a d6, in the open hits on a 4+, in light cover on a 5+, in hard cover, sorry mate, you needed a 6
3) no more piccies than necessary, thats just bloating the pagenumbers to justify the price
4) the rules themselves should only be about 10-15 pages
5) no fricken "special" rules
6) should be playable with a low figure count to let newbs get a game in quicker

I think thats about it

I'm with Sandinista. You compromise with your favourite gaming buddies, that's what you do. And then you sit down and have a drink game or two, you eat together - whether it's a fancy meal or fries and sausages doesn't matter - and you swap stories, book titles, muck about and go home thoroughly satisfied. I've been doing this every week or fortnight for the past few years and I wouldn't miss it for the world.

There are too few wargamers in my neck of the woods to even form a wargaming club, though we're working on that. Some of them have decades of experience and their taste in periods and rules is usually good, or good enough for me. Spearhead and the Warlord range mostly. Their collections of 6mm, 10mm and 15mm are huge, each of them certainly large enough to play all sorts of wars from ancients to WWII without anyone having the schlepp with funny boxes.

I'm dabbing in Crossfire and Maurice myself, mainly because I want to solo-game those rules.

Cheers,
Aart

Quote from: GordonY on 09 August 2012, 04:10:18 PM
Ok my tuppence worth, what makes a good set of rules

0) nearly forgot this one, should be period specific, not like BP. if its an ACW set then its an ACW set ONLY
1) All in one book, like BKC, intro, rules, lists, no supplements.
2) Simple, chuck a d6, in the open hits on a 4+, in light cover on a 5+, in hard cover, sorry mate, you needed a 6
3) no more piccies than necessary, thats just bloating the pagenumbers to justify the price
4) the rules themselves should only be about 10-15 pages
5) no fricken "special" rules
6) should be playable with a low figure count to let newbs get a game in quicker

I think thats about it

Neil Thomas?
http://www.pen-and-sword.co.uk/Wargaming-Nineteenth-Century-Europe-1815-1878/p/3395/ (http://www.pen-and-sword.co.uk/Wargaming-Nineteenth-Century-Europe-1815-1878/p/3395/)

Quote from: GordonY on 09 August 2012, 04:10:18 PM
Ok my tuppence worth, what makes a good set of rules

Very well - but what if no one in your area agrees with you?

This topic is not about anyone's preferred ruleset, it's about the insane amount of new rules and how to find your way in them. There are obviously a lot of clones out there and you don't want to spend your hard-earned money on yet another bland, generic ruleset interspersed with loads of eye-candy. Like I said my answer would be to compromise: talk to your gaming buddies, listen to the veterans, work out what suits all of you and then have fun together.

Cheers,
Aart

Nice looking book Ben but like I say its trying to cover too much, at one end you have smooth bore muskets firing volleys and at the other water cooled machine guns, kinda hard to get rule mechanisms to cover those kinda differences in tactics.

Aart, mostly its solo gaming and a fortnightly visit to the local club, so anyone agreeing with me or not is fairly moot and my tuppence worth was really for Leon as he was asking for what people would buy.

The stupid amount of rulesets is getting even more stupid, for example first we had Saga, then strangely enough supported by Gripping Beast Dux Britaniarum then the same week Osprey release Dux Bellorum, I can see a lot of confusion going on with the last two titles.

Quote from: GordonY on 09 August 2012, 06:22:05 PM
Aart, mostly its solo gaming and a fortnightly visit to the local club, so anyone agreeing with me or not is fairly moot.

I see. I like to go solo sometimes and then I'm very picky. For WWII I won't solo-play anything else but Crossfire, and I can't see myself solo-playing anything else but Maurice for the Nine Years' War. Hurrah for the many new rules of the last ten or fifteen years, I wouldn't want to be stuck with Scruby's or DBA.

Of course it takes some time to work out choices. I've been reading rulesets for the ECW/TYW for a year now and none seemed to have 'it'. Then Warlord came up with their fast-play Pike & Shotte rules, most of my mates were enthusiastic about them, so I decided to stick to P&S with a few tweaks.

So the huge number of rules on offer doesn't bother me at all. The more the merrier, as long as I can pick my favourites.

Cheers,
Aart

Adding myself to the call. I want all rules in one book, preferably Hardcover. If it is SC I want a handy format like A5. Colour is optional but most of all I want the rules to be BALANCED. Not a Nottingham style "Ãœberarmy of the month because we want to make more $$ from you" game.

Works in the short run but looses serious gamers with budgets over time.

@Leon: I cannot speak for every potential rulewriter but both routes are viable.

If you are significantly new or different with your ruleset you have to convince people WHY those changes are good for the game and the gamer.

The easier route is to look around at the market and take all the good stuff, wrap it in a new ruleset (easier said than done) and sell it.

A good example of a fast to learn, easy yet good ruleset is done by Mantic with their Warpath ruleset.

Got to say I'm amazed by the numbers of sets of rules being released these days.

Personally I want historical accuracy and period feel so I prefer period specific rules.

My main favourites are the Too Fat Lardies rules and RFCM rules from Peter Pig, though I do like some of the skirmish type games from Two Hour Wargames and Ganesha Games.

Surely too much is better than too little? When I look back to when I got interested in wargaming in the mid-sixties there was Featherstone, Grant and who else? WRG were a breath of fresh air when they came along in the early seventies (and I write that in all seriousness). The plethora of rulesets now available reflects the interest in the hobby and nobody forces the wargamer to shell out megabucks for the latest offering. Try the freebies at www.freewargamesrules.co.uk (http://www.freewargamesrules.co.uk) and if nothing floats your boat, have a go at writing your own. 

Interesting topic.

I tend to think that there are far too many rulesets floating about and certainly a lot them seem to be very derivative of what has gone before yet on the other hand this si probably better than the old days when there was just one or two.  When we started playing at school in the 70s, we had a choice Don Featherstone's H&M rules, WRG's and a set written by the history teacher and tweaked so that it was impossible for the French to win;  I also found a set published by Shire books by an Arthur Somebody which did away with dice and for some time my friend and I played these but they never caught on in a big way. Must have a moth-eaten copy somewhere.

Like many of us I buy quite a few rulesets to read and see what's new(ish). My ruleshelf is full of old sets which I've pilfered for ideas or army lists without ever actually using. Anyone remember Shieldwall? Bought it, readt it, never played it  :( Ditto retinue. I like DBM army list books but not the rules and still tend to play old Armati,; despite having invested in the eye-candy that is FoG. I agree with those who say that whatver the rules, they should be in one book/volume and not used as a revenue driver with lord knows how many supplements for this that and the other.  Piccies are good too; I bought the Warhammer Historical Waterloo set when it was on special offer and while I'm not sure I'll ever the use the rules as is, I've certainly drooled over the pics and made use of illustrations when painting Pendraken's Nappies.

Bascially when it comes down to it I'm with Sandinista. The main thing is to get the painted lead on the table, admire the set up and push them around for a bit while chucking a fair amount of dice (I like that ;D) and having some fun.

Quote from: Malbork on 10 August 2012, 09:13:18 AM
I also found a set published by Shire books by an Arthur Somebody which did away with dice and for some time my friend and I played these but they never caught on in a big way.

That wouldn't be The Complete Brigadier by J. Grossman, a rare 1982 ruleset for the 1680-1880 period that did away with dice and other traditional trappings? It came in a box with roster sheets, an introductory booklet that contained Grossman's complete philosophy of wargaming, another booklet with battle rules, and a set of cardboard symbols for infantry, cavalry etcetera which you could use on a pre-printed map. I bought two box sets mainly because I was fascinated by his purist theory and mechanisms. They're still on my shelf, awaiting the day when someone in the neighourhood is caught by the same bug.

Probably a vain hope.  :-\

Cheers,
Aart

Greetings

This is a topic I wonder about quite a bit.  There's a very wide range out there and they cater for very different tastes.

I started to list the rules I've bought over the last few years but stopped as it wouln't convey much other than my likes.   Given the price of rulesets I'm generally fairly picky and generaly like to see them first - though I'll get most TFL rules anyway as they are often good at inspiring new periods (as if I need that).   

It really does depend what you want.  I tend to prefer rules that are focused on playing scenarios, are fun to play but are firmly rooted in the history of the particular period.   For example, I was really put off the other day by an article on Warlord's new Bolt Action rules where Rick Priestley set out an example of a British force for the game - this was a mix of normal infantry and Royal Marine Commandos for a platoon level game.   Now obviously that's fixable by making sure you only use consistent forces but it's a bad sign for me and didn't encourage me to spend money on it.

Regards

Edward

Quote from: Aart Brouwer on 10 August 2012, 11:09:14 AM
That wouldn't be The Complete Brigadier by J. Grossman, a rare 1982 ruleset for the 1680-1880 period that did away with dice and other traditional trappings? It came in a box with roster sheets, an introductory booklet that contained Grossman's complete philosophy of wargaming, another booklet with battle rules, and a set of cardboard symbols for infantry, cavalry etcetera which you could use on a pre-printed map. I bought two box sets mainly because I was fascinated by his purist theory and mechanisms. They're still on my shelf, awaiting the day when someone in the neighourhood is caught by the same bug.

Probably a vain hope.  :-\

Cheers,
Aart

Arthur Harman I seem to recall; I had a copy that disintegrated years ago. Shire also did "Wargames Stationary" Order sheets etc. - very high tech for 1972 or thereabouts...

The other thing is the financial balance between core spending -little lead men; and peripheral spending rules, uniform books yet more paint schemes etc. I have to concentrate spending on the core now...

But always better too many rules than not enough.

QuoteArthur Harman I seem to recall; I had a copy that disintegrated years ago. Shire also did "Wargames Stationary" Order sheets etc. - very high tech for 1972 or thereabouts

A bit of googling, since I'm not at home, has reminded me that is was in fact Arthur Taylor's Rules fro Wargaming and published in 1971.

I remember the Wargaming stationery - we could never afford it so tried to copy the sheets with pen and paper and get our dads to "xerox" them at work.  The rules consist of a general set of land warfare rules with period add ons - ECW, Marlborough, Nap, ACW, WWII and naval stuff too. He also sets out his philosophy of wargaming like Aart says Grossman does (have to google him next) - something along the lines that wargaming should be like chess, you learn a few basics for all time and then use them as best you can during the game.

Think I may dust them off and give them a try out for my new ECW venture. One thing I recall is that things seemed predictable in that a bigger unit would always defeat a smaller one no matter what but this could have been partially due to our teenage interpretation of the text, we didn't bother too much with tactics.

Another ruleset that the googling threw up was Shire's English Civil Wargaming, so I should try to find my copy of that too....

Quote from: Aart Brouwer on 10 August 2012, 11:09:14 AM
That wouldn't be The Complete Brigadier by J. Grossman, a rare 1982 ruleset for the 1680-1880 period that did away with dice and other traditional trappings? It came in a box with roster sheets, an introductory booklet that contained Grossman's complete philosophy of wargaming, another booklet with battle rules, and a set of cardboard symbols for infantry, cavalry etcetera which you could use on a pre-printed map. I bought two box sets mainly because I was fascinated by his purist theory and mechanisms. They're still on my shelf, awaiting the day when someone in the neighourhood is caught by the same bug.

Probably a vain hope.  :-\

Cheers,
Aart

That sound like a game I'd love to try - pity you're not closer.

Just found my equally battered copy of Arthur Taylor's Rules for Wargaming. Packs a punch that in 68 pages you get 8 sets of rules for 40pence.

Arthur Harman was the prolific writer of all things Horse & Musket in wargame mages a few years back and still an afficianado of the Kriegspiel.

The Shire set of wargaming publications were far more easy to understand to a young kid (young once) than the legalise of the mainstream wargame rules of the time which tended to be written for competition games and tended to cover wide historical periods.

Even as a kid I thought rules needed to be specific to a war: ACW, Marlborough, Napoleonic.

Quote from: Bernie on 11 August 2012, 07:21:06 AM

Arthur Harman was the prolific writer of all things Horse & Musket in wargame mages a few years back and still an afficianado of the Kriegspiel.

Wasn't he involved in the "Game of War" TV programme with Paddy Griffith some years ago?

Yep that's the guy! He told me he still has the jumper they all had to wear for the programme!

Quote from: Last Hussar on 10 August 2012, 01:52:50 PM
That sound like a game I'd love to try - pity you're not closer.

Likewise. Grossman's game I believe is the one that comes closest to chess on a tabletop. You can play it with the cardboard counters but also with miniatures as long as they conform to the frontage rules and all that - in that respect it's similar to Wooden Ships & Iron Man. Strategically and tactically it's in the same family as Kriegspiel, but much more "wargamey" if you know what I mean.

Dirt cheap as well. Couple of dollars plus P&P. Ah well..

Cheers,
Aart

Quote from: Luddite on 09 August 2012, 09:31:49 AM

So...ramblingly stumbling to my point, what do you chaps think? 
Are there too many rulesets out there now?                                                                                                                         No.
Do you buy rules only to never play them as they're basically inferior copies to other rules you've already done?             No.
Is it good there are so many rules being published?                                                                                                            Yes.
Have you found any truely innovative rules lately?                                                                                                               Yes.
Do you think the current focus on gamist abstraction is good or bad?                                                                                 Yes - and - No.

Quote from: Luddite on 09 August 2012, 09:31:49 AM
It seems to me that, particularly over the past 3-4 years there's been an absolute glut of rules, for all periods, hitting the market.
. . .

So...ramblingly stumbling to my point, what do you chaps think?  
Are there too many rulesets out there now?      YES
Do you buy rules only to never play them as they're basically inferior copies to other rules you've already done?    SOMETIMES, NOT OFTEN
Is it good there are so many rules being published?    NO
Have you found any truely innovative rules lately?     NO
Do you think the current focus on gamist abstraction is good or bad?   I'M STUCK IN THE MIDDLE ON THIS ONE

Around here, the problem with too many rule sets is that we spread ourselves way too thin.  Everybody has a favorite set, so no one can agree what to play.  (far too many splinter groups or no one plays anything at all.)  

When games do get organized, hardly any one is familiar enough with the rules to get a good game in.  I'm tired of switching to the next "big thing" then a few games later switching again.  There just isn't enough time to between games or players to justify the number of rule sets.  As a result no one gets comfortable enough with the rules to take advantage of the little nuisances that make the rules unique in the first place and games become sloppy as you stumble around the rules like a newbie (which you are).  So I struggle to find a rule set to use for ACW which I've just started because there are just too many choices and folks are bouncing around here like a pinball machine.

In terms of new rule sets coming out, I think the reason figure manufacturers get into the rules business is because they think that having their own dedicated rule's set will sell more figures.  So they create rules that are based on what is tried and true.  It is just easier and faster to come out with some rules after a few tweaks, especially when making figures takes so much time.  Now it maybe everybody's dream to have rules and figures like the big boys and I understand that (it's my dream too, lol)  But based on the large number of figure manufacturers out there, how many different rule sets could we have.

But I think the real culprit is the ease of producing quality rules and getting them printed.  Computer technology is just too easy to use.  So I picked up rule set X and after a few weeks I come up with all these house rules and someone says you really should sell these rules, they're good.  A month later you have a PDF, a forum and version 2.0 in the works.  Hit a few shows running demo games, create a small fan base and your off and running.  

The one thing I am envious of is the clubs that are available across the pond.  We have a few clubs but for the most part games are played at game stores, playing the newest, greatest thing the store wants to sell and the folks who attend change all the time.

Duane

Ah that point half way through a game when someone says "Isn't that in 'xxx' not this?"

Surely there's a point in a game when someone says "that's bloody stupid" and the players, if they're reasonable types, reach a compromise and over-rule the stupidity? This is how "house rules" come about.  ;)

Quote from: Syr Hobbs on 12 August 2012, 03:43:47 PM
 
Around here, the problem with too many rule sets is that we spread ourselves way too thin.  Everybody has a favorite set, so no one can agree what to play.  (far too many splinter groups or no one plays anything at all.)  

I heartily agree.  My group plays something different almost every week, which results in this...

QuoteWhen games do get organized, hardly any one is familiar enough with the rules to get a good game in.

Although we do tend to play the same bunch of rules so you sort of vaguely remember what's going on.  Even so its a real problem.  The flipside i suppose is playing the same thing all the time and getting bored?

QuoteI'm tired of switching to the next "big thing" then a few games later switching again.

Couldn't agree more!  A few years ago we played DBM pretty much solidly.  Now then, love 'em or  hate 'em (and i do both) DBx gives a good game especially for tournament play and we played them consistently, to tournament standard.  We became 'experts', fully understanding the rules and able to concentrate on the tactical aspects of play.

Since FoG blew that out of the water (with an inferior game in my opinion) we've splintered up a bit and really haven't settled on 'one ruleset' since then.  Its tiring and disengaging to switch rules each week never really getting 'into the groove' of a set of rules.   :(  As you say here...

QuoteThere just isn't enough time to between games or players to justify the number of rule sets.  As a result no one gets comfortable enough with the rules to take advantage of the little nuisances that make the rules unique in the first place and games become sloppy as you stumble around the rules like a newbie (which you are).

QuoteSo I struggle to find a rule set to use for ACW which I've just started because there are just too many choices and folks are bouncing around here like a pinball machine.

Oddly though this is one period were are set on.  ACW is pretty much Fire & Fury.  Accept no substitutes!

QuoteIn terms of new rule sets coming out, I think the reason figure manufacturers get into the rules business is because they think that having their own dedicated rule's set will sell more figures.  So they create rules that are based on what is tried and true.  It is just easier and faster to come out with some rules after a few tweaks, especially when making figures takes so much time.  Now it maybe everybody's dream to have rules and figures like the big boys and I understand that (it's my dream too, lol)

I think you're partially right.  Proprietary rules/figure linking does sometimes work, and indeed make sense.  E.g. i've recently got into Dystopian Wars, and their models (ships) are pretty much the reason we picked this interesting naval game up.

However, in most cases, i'll rarely limit myself to a manufacturer's 'official' figures.  I suspect most of us don't, or hate ourselves and resernt the vendor when we do, which is why the likes of GW and FoW bring out so much rage/hate?!

QuoteBut based on the large number of figure manufacturers out there, how many different rule sets could we have.

That's an interesting point.  Indeed, how many do we need??

QuoteBut I think the real culprit is the ease of producing quality rules and getting them printed.  Computer technology is just too easy to use.  So I picked up rule set X and after a few weeks I come up with all these house rules and someone says you really should sell these rules, they're good.  A month later you have a PDF, a forum and version 2.0 in the works.  Hit a few shows running demo games, create a small fan base and your off and running.  

By 'quality' i presume you mean production values and appearance?  There are certainly a lot of rules released now stuffed with what we call 'wargames p0rn'; lots of pretty pictures, nice backgrounds to the pages, etc.  Rules quality seems to be very hit and miss i think.  I've bought some absolute stinkers lately, as well as a lot of mediocre 'filler'.  I can count what i'd consider good rulesets on one hand probably.

Quote
The one thing I am envious of is the clubs that are available across the pond.  We have a few clubs but for the most part games are played at game stores, playing the newest, greatest thing the store wants to sell and the folks who attend change all the time.

Duane

Now that would suck hard.  I'm glad i'm not gaming in that sort of environment; regular change plus pressure to buy...rough.


OK, so i guess having posed the questions i should have a stab at answering them!


Are there too many rulesets out there now?

It feels like there are to me, but i'm not sure why.  I suppose 'comsumer choice' is a good thing, but the problem i see with the plethora of rules is which one do you pick? 

For example, we've struggled for years to find a decent set of WWII rules to do what we want it to.  None of the sets we used quite fit the bill and it wasn't until we dug out the old Spearhead rules that we realised what we wanted was already knocking about and years old!  It cost a lot of money and wasted time to find that out though.



Do you buy rules only to never play them as they're basically inferior copies to other rules you've already done?

Goodness me YES!  See the example above! 

But i've got a shelf full of rules that i'm unlikely to ever play (or play again).  Usually that's because they're rubbish (Mr Lincoln's War  >:( ), or more usually they're OK, or 'meh' (XXCommander), but not quite what i'm after. 

This i guess is a symptom of the 'too many rules' issue.  With so much available, their will be good, bad, and ugly, as well as 'stuff i like' and 'stuff i hate'.

Is it good there are so many rules being published?

Well, in some ways i suppose it's good in that shows The Hobby is vibrant enough, especially in these supposedly straightened times, to support new stuff coming out. 

However, to be good, these rules really need to be filling gaps not currently covered, rather than hopping on the bandwagon.  'Oh goody, another WWII rule set'.   (:| X_X

Have you found any truely innovative rules lately?

Not really is the answer. 

I suppose Malifaux's card resolution system comes close, but to be honest i thought that actually damaged the game, turning what could have been a nice little skirmish set into a card game.   :(

Dystopian Wars uses the 'exploding dice pool' mechanic that i've not seen in a wargame, but is common among roleplaying games, so not really 'innovative'.

Other than that i'm struggling to think of anything truely 'innovative' from any of the current batch of new games.

Do you think the current focus on gamist abstraction is good or bad?

Would anyone really want to return to the simulationist nightmares of the 1970's?

Probably not, and of course all games have a neccessary level of abstraction.  Some, like DBx take abstraction to the extreme. 

But what i guess my question is getting at is the concentration on gamist abstractions and the removal of 'scale'.  When was the last time you bought a modern ruleset that defined a ground scale?  'Proper' ranges and movement distances?  A turn sequence that represented a fixed time period rather than 'an initiative impulse'?

While i think a level of abstraction is very good (penetration vs tank armour, modified by deflection, range, obscurants, etc.etc. is very bad) i do think games lose something by not nailing down these other aspects. 

We all know about 'friction' in the various periods of warfare, and the basic frictions of how far men can move in a given time, how far force can be projected, etc. are vital i think.  Perhaps this is what we're talking about when we say we want 'period flavour' in our rules rather than the vanilla of a generic 'do anything' set?

Abstraction - Good or bad?  I think there needs to be balance, but i'd like to see a bit of a shift towards including scaling.

Aye...

Quote from: kustenjaeger on 10 August 2012, 12:07:06 PM
Greetings

It really does depend what you want.  I tend to prefer rules that are focused on playing scenarios, are fun to play but are firmly rooted in the history of the particular period.   For example, I was really put off the other day by an article on Warlord's new Bolt Action rules where Rick Priestley set out an example of a British force for the game - this was a mix of normal infantry and Royal Marine Commandos for a platoon level game.   Now obviously that's fixable by making sure you only use consistent forces but it's a bad sign for me and didn't encourage me to spend money on it.

My copy arrived today and wish I hadn't gone there, straight to ebay or trademe here in NZ unfortunately.  presentation, style and the smaller book in the FOG style (fine for FOG but not Warlord) was a major disappointment and yes I didn't need to buy it but I did!.

re the market go Sandinista dead on and on the weekend I was reading Henry Hyde's blog and yup spot on as well, keep it simple, keep it fun as life is too full of sh*t. :)

As for writing and releasing, could luck if you do leon, been there in the past at the start with FOW and the first three extensions and its not a lot of fun at times as you lead people to change but hey its paid off in the long run for that organisation so why shouldn't with yours.

Onwards and upwards everyone happy gaming :-)

Oh and choice frig each week I change my mind dammit!

Oh and re any innovative rulesets lately, yes:

SAM MUSTAFA MAURICE and dare I say it World of Tanks PC Game  :d

Quote from: rexhurley on 12 September 2012, 02:30:31 AM

Oh and re any innovative rulesets lately, yes:

SAM MUSTAFA MAURICE and dare I say it World of Tanks PC Game  :d

Interesting.

Why do you say Maurice is 'innovative'?

Quote from: Luddite on 18 September 2012, 10:31:57 AM
Interesting.

Why do you say Maurice is 'innovative'?

How the game actually plays versus say FOG N, Koenig Krieg, Die Keiungreist, or numerous other H&M Games.  The card driven mechanics for terrain generation, play, events and nobles is certainly different and gives a wonderful feel to the game, the period and the hobby.

its certainly not yet another line em up and a plagarised copy of something else

Quote from: Malbork on 10 August 2012, 01:16:41 PM
A bit of googling, since I'm not at home, has reminded me that is was in fact Arthur Taylor's Rules fro Wargaming and published in 1971.

I've still got my copy of them. Have to give them a try and my brother has the Complete Brigadier box so that may well be worth me having a look at.

Up until the last year or so I mainly had Games workshop and a few RPGs but I'm now reborn!!! So ill hopefully have a fresh view.

For me it's the mind set of the game, imagining that hoard of  Vikings, the marching of the Romans, the screaming of Orks, the Drums of Napoleonic regiments, the two rank fire of British against Zulus, the rumble of tanks through ruined fresh villages, the automatic fire of future soldiers or the growl of a 10ft alien!... That doesn't mean that the rules don't matter, infact the opposite, if the rules are bust, the imagination is bust! For example Luddite (in his residual self image) showed me and Dim_Reaper 'Hord of the things' It's nice, it captures my imagination and I can imagine massive regiment doing battle.

So when me and Dim started writing a system for our Doctor who game (as well as a Zombi game and a few more)  we stick to the concept of the 3 Fs...

1) FIT   Dose the system fit with how you imagin? If two units fire at each other, is the aftermath as you imagine? Or do the troops move as you would imagin? It's not based on facts, just what you see as correct given the fiction you are playing and the boundarys of the world your playing in?

2) FUN   Within the system do you enjoy it? Does the game drag, does it have to much detail, or not enough? Is it a mess of counters on the board or too many dice roles?

3) FAIR is the system fair? For both sides?

The point is, as it all is, it's opinion, my 3 Fs are a good concept, but its up to the players to decide if a system lives up to this concepts.

Hi.  Yes - too many to choose from, very expensive at times, and trying to convince us that THESE ARE THE RULES TO BEAT ALL RULES.

But also NO. Don't you just love reading all those "new" - or not so new - ideas.  And Oh! All that eye candy.

Suppose it sounds like i've got a split personality?

Suppose that's why i posted my enquiry about the "perfect" set of Ancient Rules _ had lots of good feedback.  Thanks guys.

Sets Chad and I have bought and we've had fun with and enjoyed are;

Neil Thomas's Ancient Rules,  Maurice,  March Attack,  Die Fighting  and  Field of Battle -  to name but a few of the many we've bought over the years.

Best Wishes   DaveL

I must say i don't really care for all those "must-buy" rules. My first foray in historical wargaming  was via some revell figures and a free set of rules i found on freewargamerules.co.uk:

http://www.freewargamesrules.co.uk/


Not all that is on there is good, but some are usable, and it always beats havig to buy a set! Most of these are fairly simple so allow for quick games too!

The last set i was looking at are these:  http://met.open.ac.uk/group/jwl/napoleonic/fprules.pdf

However, when something good comes along, like the first time i played BKC, i can always go out and buy me a copy, as i will have never lost anything but the paper i printed my free rules on ;)

Not to say i don't ask around though, knowing is half the battle

Edit: just a little example of neat stuff you can find: http://www.juniorgeneral.org/waterloo/waterloo.html

Do I think the market is overstuffed? Well yeah, but here's where I stand up and say "My name is Gordon, and I'm a rules junkie."

I try to restrict myself to only buying 2 rulesets a month, pretty much the only ones I'll avoid like the plague are those that follow the Games Workshop/Battlefront formula, i.e. a rulebook followed by 243 supplements/codexes, the only exception to this being WRG's Ancients and DBM, well a ruleset that spans the globe and covers 5000 years should be cut a little slack. I'll also avoid buying rules that are just released, I'd much rather look at a few AARs (mainly to see if the unit basing gives the 'look' of the period that I want) and read a couple of reviews to see if the mechanics suit me.

Lately I find myself buying rulesets that I had 25 years ago (last one was Irregulars Ancients Rule box) and being amazed that hell yeah these are really good and then wondering why I've spent the last quarter century trying to find a better one.

I dont see it as overstuffed. Market forces will dictate what survives and what doesn't but I love the choice we have theses days.

The vast majority of rules in my cupboard have never been played but bought on a whim, read and put away.

My all time favourite set are over 20 years old (original Fire and Fury). I have played and enjoyed the Black Powder and Bolt Action. I have also played rules by Featherstone and Wesencraft.

I had a discussion with a mate at WMMS yesterday who says his club are searching for a set of Ancients they like. Th problem is they have played just about every set of Ancients rules you could name. Not sure if he has tried Neil Thomas' rules yet so may suggest those.

So for me, the more the better. Whether there are many original ideas in any of these new sets is another question.

Sean

Quote from: Windle Poons on 11 March 2013, 10:08:02 AM
I dont see it as overstuffed. Market forces will dictate what survives and what doesn't but I love the choice we have theses days.

......

So for me, the more the better. Whether there are many original ideas in any of these new sets is another question.

Sean

Hear, hear! If the market is overstuffed, so what? What's the solution? Censorship? Issue of licenses to produce? Mass book-burning? That's absurd.

As Sean says, the market will take care of the situation eventually. In the meantime, browse what's available and if it takes your fancy - buy it. Otherwise put it back on the shelf.

As far as peer-pressure to continually switch goes, our group has a tacit agreement that only one member will buy a set of new rules so that they can be evaluated on the table. We're going through the process with Hail Caesar and Blitzkreig Commander at the moment. Only when and if they obtain general approval will anyone else chip in. And we're not shy of rejigging them if we think something's amiss.

As for a lack of new ideas - you could always try contributing your own. To mis-quote Shaw - those who can, do; those who cannot, buy.   

Whilst browsing other rule mechanisms I have frequently utilised a long period of research and developed my own alongside a friend whom also reads extensively .
At present I am looking at other sets as I am developing an alternative 19th Cen setting and as I want to work on a grand skirmish level of small squads I am looking to develop a system that allows single and group fire. I am also looking to.develop a solo system as I frequently play solo .
The free Wargames site is a valuable resource and also prevents the large companies always gaining money.which as the entries indicate results in shelves bursting with unused volumes.

Not sure there are too many, but boy they are expensive! What I REALLY notice is a conspicuous lack of rules articles in the wargames mags - in the past I got rules by Andy Callan and Richard Brooks amongst others, that I still use, and barely a month would go by that there wouldn't be a rules article that gave some fresh ideas. Now - not sure where these have gone? (free wargames rules on-line perhaps - but I don't really have the enthusiasm to trawl through pages of dross to find something worthwhile). Does everyone who might once have contributed via a magazine article now aspire to publishing their set at 30 quid a go and retiring on their earnings?
Maybe I'm just old!

like others have said market forces will sort it out.  I use some expensive rules and some cheap one also use some of free wargames website.

I like the idea of Osprey bringing out cheaper rules though I have a complete set of the Force on Force and Bolt Action rules.

After many years of wargaming I starting to stick to rules for the periods I game.  Thats the plan guess i will find out when then next set of rules come out.

I just enjoy collecting rules and shiney figures.  =O

Quote from: richinq on 09 December 2013, 10:37:04 PM
I like the idea of Osprey bringing out cheaper rules though I have a complete set of the Force on Force and Bolt Action rules.

Neither of those sets of rules are what I would call cheap, almost £100 for Bolt Action, more for Force on Force..    

Quote from: Derek H on 13 December 2013, 08:37:02 AM
Neither of those sets of rules are what I would call cheap, almost £100 for Bolt Action, more for Force on Force..    

Far canal! For that sort of money I'd want the complete rifle!  :o :o :o

The cheap one I have is A world Aflame.

Quote from: richinq on 13 December 2013, 12:19:05 PM
The cheap one I have is A world Aflame.

Which is a pretty poor ruleset.

Dux Bellorum and In Her Majesties Name are far better i would suggest.

DB and IHMN are both very good and damned good value at between £7-£8 on Amazon including delivery.

There seems to be a current trend for figure manufacturers to produce big sets of rules then the figures to play them, basically following the GW business model,  Warlord is the most obvious example but there are many others.  The trend seems to have taken off when Warhammer historical was finnaly killed off, we've had a number of sets of rules aimed at filling the WHA niche, 28mm figures with relatively small numbers of figs and units, interestingly several of them seem to have been penned by ex WHH staff members.

Try Repique Rules for any number of completely original ideas, particularly Die Fighting, 2nd edition coming out soon which is a video rules set, walking through the rules in handy 2 minute segments showing you exactly how to play them - downloadable accessories & everything you'll need at a cost less than printed rule sets. This is being produced by Bob Jones who is a professional in both media & war-games rules. If you want something different & a great game, check them out. I don't work for Bob, I just LOVE his rules.

i

Quote from: DanJ on 31 December 2013, 03:08:30 PM
There seems to be a current trend for figure manufacturers to produce big sets of rules then the figures to play them, basically following the GW business model,

But that's not the GW business model anymore.

In fact Games Workshop don't produce games at all.

They produce collectible figurines apparently.

Something they forgot to tell their game-playing customer base... @-)

What are people's stance towards home-made (complete) rules?

Are people willing to share their rules for free, and are people in general willing to test them?

I'm primarily asking this because while some of the rules I do appreciate like Lasalle, I wouldn't mind seeing more home-made ones to see if they're any more interesting. I think Elan is the other one I keep on me as I find it quite detailed.

Yes and yes. Try here.

http://rulesdepot.net/index.html (http://rulesdepot.net/index.html)

Quote from: Luddite on 09 August 2012, 09:31:49 AM
It seems to me that, particularly over the past 3-4 years there's been an absolute glut of rules, for all periods, hitting the market. (snip)

So...ramblingly stumbling to my point, what do you chaps think? Are there too many rule-sets out there now?

That would rather depend on a definition of too many?  Choice is a good thing, but without knowledge of what you're choosing it can be very confusing, and therefore hard to make a choice.  I say this as an occasional reviewer of rules for MW&BG.
 

Quote from: Luddite on 09 August 2012, 09:31:49 AMDo you buy rules only to never play them as they're basically inferior copies to other rules you've already done?

I have in the past, and will probably do so again, but it's never my intention to do so.  I read reviews and listen to what the word on the net is, and then decide.

Quote from: Luddite on 09 August 2012, 09:31:49 AMIs it good there are so many rules being published?

See answer to question one.

Quote from: Luddite on 09 August 2012, 09:31:49 AMHave you found any truly innovative rules lately?

Yes, pretty much all the rule-sets from TooFat Lardies meet this criteria, especially Charlie Don't Surf and Chain of Command.

Quote from: Luddite on 09 August 2012, 09:31:49 AMDo you think the current focus on gamist abstraction is good or bad?

Neither, abstraction is just a tool that provides a means to an end.

I try to ask myself 'what does this give me that is different to what I already have?' I'll happily buy several, say fantasy rules, if they are for different scales or play differently such as mass combat fantasy over skirmish. I do love rules though. Never Enough  :D

I play different scales with different rules in the same period and different rules with the same scale as well. An example is Dux Bellorum in 28mm and Dux Britanniarum in 10mm.

Quote from: Leman on 16 February 2015, 11:05:46 AM
I play different scales with different rules in the same period and different rules with the same scale as well. An example is Dux Bellorum in 28mm and Dux Britanniarum in 10mm.

Your genitives are showing!

Don't know what a genitive is, don't care (with thanks to Science Hill).

Are there too many rulesets out there now?
might be just me but for fantasy i wish there was some more, there is some good ones though for big battle. however falls short in skirmish.

Do you buy rules only to never play them as they're basically inferior copies to other rules you've already done?
i think it depends on people around you more if you have no one around playing those set rules doesnt matter if theyre good or not.

Is it good there are so many rules being published?
as long as theyre of good quality i dont see no problem

Have you found any truly innovative rules lately?
not really i dont most game have very similar styles. the more unique ones are games like infinity which are more well crafted but require specific things

however i do wish there was a big great generic rule set. one for big battles, one for skirmish that way everyone can use what they wanted and it could be well crafted and popular i think kings of war has handled the generic big army rule set very well. dont think there's a good skirmisher though. i tried out open combat with a friend and it was short lived

Just been involved in a few days of cleaning, painting and clearing the wargames club. I have never seen so much fantasy and role-play stuff in all my days. Drawers and drawers of A4 books, hardback and softback; it just went on and on. Much of it was described as out of date. Some of it was ditched, but not a single historical rules set was binned.

Quote from: zackzeta on 19 May 2016, 02:33:56 AM
Are there too many rulesets out there now?

Hell, yes.

This is both a weakness and a strength of the hobby.

If you look at chess, there is one set of rules (someone (probably FK) is going to tell me I'm wrong) so anyone in the world can play anyone else. This universality leads to homogeneity but IMHO is one of the reasons that chess an incredibly dull game. Doesn't even have the excitement of snakes and ladders.

Mornington Crescent, on the other hand, has so many variants that it would take a lifetime to learn them all. I personally am a fan of the Cutts-Lewis method, probably because I enjoy doubling back on stations, but there are so many variants of this game that is loved, not just in the UK, but around the world, that it would take a lifetime to learn the lot. This means that Mornington Crescent always has something to give, but it is difficult to get a good game with someone who knows your brand. The community is thinly spread.

Personally, I find learning rule sets tedious, and usually not worth the trouble.

Let me be a little bit incendiary.

I think that it would be entirely possible for there to be one set of rules for every period, every size of battle, from skirmish to BBBs.

Weapons go stab, crush or bang. Armour is resistant to these. People, horses, goblins and grav-tanks move at a certain speed. One model/base represents on person/squad/100 elves. As a hobby we sometimes get hung up about rule sets and base widths and forget that the important thing is not to paint green collars black.

I'm in the camp that thinks there can never be enough rule sets.

I wish everybody would agree to a bloody base size though  :P

Quote from: fsn on 19 May 2016, 08:39:41 AM
Let me be a little bit incendiary.

I think that it would be entirely possible for there to be one set of rules for every period, every size of battle, from skirmish to BBBs.

Weapons go stab, crush or bang. Armour is resistant to these. People, horses, goblins and grav-tanks move at a certain speed. One model/base represents on person/squad/100 elves. As a hobby we sometimes get hung up about rule sets and base widths and forget that the important thing is not to paint green collars black.

Heretic, burn the witch...

But seriously, no.  Just no.

Because one set of rules to rule them all and in the darkness bind them would lead to the War of the Rules....

Sorry, distracted. Oh look, shiny.

We been stealing Nobbys pills sir ?

IanS

But think, My Precious, one set of rules for all. They would go with your skirmish medievals, with your platoon level WWII, with your brigade level Napoleonics and with your full army LoA (including the command set of pensive Colonel, slightly ratted non-com and ensign who may just have stood in something) and one set would do them all. You could go into any club anywhere (except Aberystwyth, where they are wedded to their own ways) and pick up a game.

Humans is humans. Horses is horses. They have reacted pretty much the same way since the dawn of man. What's the real difference between a javelin thrown at naked tribesman and a Webley bullet fired at him? Distance and impact? And what is the difference between that tribesman's ability to move across grassland if his enemy is Alexander the Great or Lord Chelmsford? And does it matter to aforesaid naked tribesman if his flank is turned by light cavalry or light tanks?

The number of wargames rules sets required by the hobby as a whole is found by using the following formula

ITP x DGA x PSA x (TNW+1) / TWDI

Where ITP is Identifiable Time Periods, DGA is Distinct Geographical Areas, PSA is Possible Size of Actions, TNW is the Total Number of Wargamers and TWDI is Total of Wargamers Disposable Income

Since wargamers (and their spouses in the case of the last element) will never agree on values for any of these the required number is Infinity + 1 :)

But, Milord Oik, you still have to consider scale. Skirmish? Tactical? Grand Tactical? Operational? Stategic? Stupidly Big?

That's covered under PSA. We shall now spend eleventy gazillion hours on innumerable posts discussing this. And still not get a consensus :D

My old dad worked for PSA on Catterick Garrison in the 1980s and early 90s. That was until they changed the name to NOREAST, government funding cuts decimated MOD spending and then they got rid of PSA altogether and contracted out maintenance of British Army property to Balfour Beaty.
Rather a bugger it was, too. Could have been posted as a family to Cyprus or, possibly if they did allow the family (I can't remember) to Belize. Might have been fun plagued with tropical diseases.

Or is it a different PSA you're talking about?  :-*

Public Service Announcement? With that cartoon cat yowling warnings?

I rest my case :D

Google gives the meaning to PSA as

"Prostate Specific Antigen
PSA is a blood test that is commonly used to help predict the presence of prostate cancer. It stands for Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) and refers to a protein first identified in 1979 that is made only by the prostate gland."

I just think they're talking out of their ars*.

:P

Ars, just outside of Metz, on the way up to Gorze. Stopped in a lovely bar there many times!

Ars Gratia Artis

Quote from: Wulf on 19 May 2016, 01:13:08 PM
But, Milord Oik, you still have to consider scale. Skirmish? Tactical? Grand Tactical? Operational? Stategic? Stupidly Big?

Why? A tank model is either a tank, or a troop or a squadron or a regiment. Your naked tribesman is either "Ug", the club wielding brute, or Ug's family, or Ug's clan or the whole Uggish race.

Your 400 beautifully painted French line infantry of 1812 are either a battalion, a brigade or a division largely dependent upon the number of flags you have painted.

What we do, and this is where the real heresy comes in, is the same as board gamers, but with prettier counters. 

I heartily agree with that (since I mostly play Boardgames...), but it falls apart in specific situations, specifically terrain. Skirmish scale requires different terrain to Operational, etc.  Otherwise you get tanks that can't move their own length in a turn...

Quote from: Wulf on 19 May 2016, 03:30:10 PM
I heartily agree with that (since I mostly play Boardgames...), but it falls apart in specific situations, specifically terrain. Skirmish scale requires different terrain to Operational, etc.  Otherwise you get tanks that can't move their own length in a turn...

Tush and fie! A skirmish stream is a brigade's river.  As long as you are consistent, you just adjust the relative time/distance scales. In skirmish you play 1 move = 1 seconds, in division 1 move = 15 seconds.  in skirmish 1" = 1yd , in division 1" = 15 yards. It's all relative.

Quote from: Wulf on 19 May 2016, 03:30:10 PM
I heartily agree with that (since I mostly play Boardgames...), but it falls apart in specific situations, specifically terrain. Skirmish scale requires different terrain to Operational, etc.  Otherwise you get tanks that can't move their own length in a turn...

I remember this with the rules we used as a kid, with 1/72nd plastics, infantry couldn't move the length of a tank in a turn. I think the rules were notionally 1/1000 ground scale.

Quote from: fsn on 19 May 2016, 03:23:37 PM


Why? A tank model is either a tank, or a troop or a squadron or a regiment. Your naked tribesman is either "Ug", the club wielding brute, or Ug's family, or Ug's clan or the whole Uggish race.

Your 400 beautifully painted French line infantry of 1812 are either a battalion, a brigade or a division largely dependent upon the number of flags you have painted.

What we do, and this is where the real heresy comes in, is the same as board gamers, but with prettier counters. 

While the model can very easily represent all these scales of units, just by changing the names, the rules have to treat them differently. Ug the individual can turn and react to threats on his flank, much more easily than can the whole Uggish race.  The bigger the group that your it represents the shorter individual weapon ranges get, relative to the size of the group, so in a skirmish game Ug could throw his javelin many times the width of his base footprint, but if it's the whole Uggish race represented by the same figure, then the range of the javelin may be so short as to be just part of hand to hand melee.

TBH I'm glad that there isn't one set of rules, because if there was you can bet your life it would have WRG stamped all over it, and how naff would that be. I for one am very happy that rules have developed over the years to give better and better games for someone like me (not OCD or bolt counter or in the 'that weapon will always beat that weapon' camp). Of note recently have been Neil Thomas' books, Dux Bellorum, BBB, Honours of War, Black Powder, Impetus, Baroque and so on; all a million miles away from the tedium of WRG.

It strikes me as a strange stance to take: too many rules?  :o

No one has to buy them all. Just look at the media - how many newspapers are there? You don't buy them all - only the ones you like and trust.

If I popped into the supermarket for cereal they'd think me very odd if I complained about too much choice!  ;D

Are any newspapers trustworthy...they almost all lied over brexit after all.

One of the challenges of 'too many' rules is fragmentation of an already small hobby

This can make it challenging to agree on a game to play
I was thinking about going to our Nationals at Easter next year, not one period or rule set that I would consider playing on offer :(

It also spreads the wargaming dollar/pound/... very thin making it hard to fund enhancements to rules, lists etc

Of course none of the sets I play are in the too many category  ;) ;D

Quote from: Dr Dave on 21 November 2017, 12:45:50 PM
If I popped into the supermarket for cereal they'd think me very odd if I complained about too much choice!  ;D

Yes but at breakfast time if you, and each member of your family has a different cereal, this isn't a problem. But if you and your 3 mates turn up to play a game each with a different ruleset then it is a problem.

Otherwise +1 to what Paul says.

Ahhhh, I see your point. The thing at our club is that generally players collect both sides and then put on their game and invite others to join in. Hence each person simply chooses their own cereal and gets everything. We are a club of megalomaniacs.

Aaah, a buy two boxes, and the bowels, setup the table and away you go.

While we sometimes do that, to get the boxes out on the table a second time, people need to like it and want to buy the rules and figures themselves, otherwise it just stagnates.

As a group Bolt Action has been 'agreed' as the WWII skirmish game of choice. This isn't really my thing on rules or scale. But frankly to get some big group games in I'll go for it. And Warlord certainly make it easy to get started. And this is the power of marketing. There are lots of gamers who want it all laid out in front of them - and I think this is largely to do with GW. In one way it stops discussion, of how you think something should be. On the other hand it just promotes endless 'well it wouldn't have worked in that way' discussions. With house rules, there is often the problem of too many cooks, not enough cutting, and no overall direction.

The problem still seems to be that I want Oatibix, Dave thinks he wants All Bran, but really wants Frosties, and John wants Aritsan Granola, while the other Dave wants Sugarcoated Space Aliens with extra Marshmallows. And Steve is in the corner with his non-lactose milk. Approximately.

Quote from: Dr Dave on 21 November 2017, 10:29:48 PM
Ahhhh, I see your point. The thing at our club is that generally players collect both sides and then put on their game and invite others to join in. Hence each person simply chooses their own cereal and gets everything. We are a club of megalomaniacs.

It's always seemed best to me to do it that way.

I agree with the original premise. But having said that one needs to understand that I am happily stuck solid in rules that were written and published 20+ years ago with only a very few tweaks, so really have no interest in all the new stuff coming out. What I see is a great focus on skirmish type gaming, which is OK, but is not for me. I agree there seems to be set after set after set popping up. Then I guess that why they make both chocolate and vanilla!

Terry

I for one am glad this happens. About 10 years ago I was becoming very jaded with wargaming as, with the best will in the world, games seemed to be taking longer and becoming increasingly tedious to play. In 2009 a mate and I made a decision to each buy a Pendraken SYW army and play Minden Rose. This got me enthused again, but there were still a couple of fuzzy areas in these rules. Then I tried Black Powder, but it didn't do it for me. Finally Honours of War appeared. Brilliant, great fun excellent scenarios, understandable rules. The same happened with the ACW and FPW when BBB and Altar of Freedom came along. Other new rules have also got me interested again - Basic Impetus 2, Field of Battle 2, Square Bashing, To the Strongest, Baroque and the various books by Neil Thomas, none of which were around 20 years ago.

Quote from: Leman on 22 November 2017, 08:29:31 AM
... I was becoming very jaded with wargaming as, with the best will in the world, games seemed to be taking longer and becoming increasingly tedious to play.

I found that too. I used to be a "conflict specific" rules fan, thinking 'how can rules sets like WRG's 1685-1845 properly cover a couple of hundred years?' But when work commitments became more onerous and stressful, I didn't have the time or inclination to learn a whole load of different rules and all I wanted to do was turn up after work and have a game.  So, suddenly the benefits of a generic rule set became apparent. I bought Field of Battle and life became much simpler (FoB covers about 200 years). Not really needing another set of rules to learn, I resisted Black Powder for long enough but finally bought that set too and enjoyed it also (BP covers a similar era to FoB). The oldest of the two, FoB (1st Edition), was released in 2006(?) so whilst the market is overstuffed, I for one am glad it is because 'new releases' such as these have without a doubt extended my wargaming career.   

p.s. Am I exclusively a "generic era" exponent? Well, I was for a while ....then I 'regressed' and finally succumbed to the allure of Honours of War (SYW specific - but can be adapted to most 18th Century wars). As Leman says, easy to learn and great fun, and just another example over "over stuffing" being no bad thing.  :-[   

I thought any horse-and-musket other than SYW counted as unnecessarily stuffing the market?

......and moving on, FOB2 is also a set I have used a lot over the last 6 or 7 years as I have found them to be a very enjoyable and relatively straightforward set for divisional level games, which, being card driven, are great for solo play. Furthermore the cards nicely summarise the rules they cover so reducing the need to refer back to the book. I have used them so far for Franco-Austrian, ACW, Austro-Prussian and Franco-Prussian Wars, mainly with my opponent's 15mm armies. They are great for old style scenarios a la C S Grant.

Quote from: Sandinista on 09 August 2012, 11:32:07 AM
Having come back into the hobby 3 years or so ago after a 20 year gap I do think there are an awful lot of rules out there, most I've not played. It can be a little frustrating trying to find a set that most at the club are happy to play. I do wonder at times at the people who condemn a rule set as being unrealistic, what are they looking for? I have seen some rules with so many cross referenced charts I feel I need a maths degree to understand them. We were chatting in the bar after the games club last week and playing a game using WRG's 5th edition ancients was mooted, as all had said they enjoyed them back in the day.

Basically, all I am after is putting my toys on the table, moving them about a bit, having a bit of banter and a beer with my opponent and ending the evening wanting to do it all again

Bravo!  Bravo!   =D> =D> =D> =D>

I thought this is what miniature wargaming was all about.  This is why I do it.  I want to get together with like minded friends, throw some dice, move some soldiers around, cry at my double 1s, celebrate at my rare 6s and at the end of the night say what a great time it was and look forward to planning the next night.  Honestly if I am doing math to determine what I am doing then sorry, I didn't like it as a kid, not sure why I would like it as an adult.  gaming should be fun without being ridiculous! :-  I think!  roll some 6s........

Quote from: FierceKitty on 22 November 2017, 10:35:20 AM
I thought any horse-and-musket other than SYW counted as unnecessarily stuffing the market?

No, that's Aztecs you're thinking of. :D

Quote from: Nick the Lemming on 22 November 2017, 02:36:33 PM
No, that's Aztecs you're thinking of. :D

Touché  ;D ;D ;D

I have never understood the animus toward Aztecs on this board. Is it feathers? The dragon glass weapons technology? The lack of wheeled vehicles? The human sacrifices? The unpronounceable gods?

There is a definite trend to simplification of rules. And this is generally a good thing. But there is a fine line between simplification of rules and making a simple game. A good set of rules gives you decisions to make, and should reward the tactics and actions taken in the period. A ruleset needs to have that elusive 'feel' - and this a personal thing, and this makes it hard to get a group to agree.

This is where the big sets score, because they have lots of marketing and support, which helps people know about them and want to play them. And ease of getting a game in helps, you don't want every game to be an introductory game where you are having to help people learn the rules and their armies.  

Quote from: d_Guy on 22 November 2017, 05:25:04 PM
I have never understood the animus toward Aztecs on this board. Is it feathers? The dragon glass weapons technology? The lack of wheeled vehicles? The human sacrifices? The unpronounceable gods?

I think it might be to do with a cat.

Well the piteous mewling does get a bit tedious, even if the range has more justification than the AWI Tarleton's legion howls we were suffering from.

Quote from: d_Guy on 22 November 2017, 05:25:04 PM
I have never understood the animus toward Aztecs on this board. Is it feathers? The dragon glass weapons technology? The lack of wheeled vehicles? The human sacrifices? The unpronounceable gods?

Eating POW in chocolate sauce, perhaps.

I'm a Napoleonic gamer in as much that I started my first Napoleonic army in 1971 with Hinchliffe 25mm and London Wargames Section Rules for Napoleonic Warfare.
Prior to this it was Charge! by Peter Young (SYW) and Battle by Charles Grant (WWII) from a series in meccano magazine.
The first thing that will be noticed is that the title actually gives you some idea of what the book is about. No title in a European language that you have to ask for a translation.

They, like most of the rules that followed were just that, rules. They were a refining of Don Featherstons rules in his book War Game.

The J & S Reed Rules was the first rules for Napoleonic games that had casualties in men rather than figures and morale charts.

In 1975/6 Trevor Halsall published an ACW set of rules and a Rules for Napoleonic Warfare used for several years in the National Wargames Championships. To my mind these were the peak for Napoleonic rules by the time 4th edition was published.
They still had a figure to men scale of 20 : 1 and a ground scale of 1 inch = 20 paces.
At our club, Stoke Wargames Group, for larger battles this was changed to 1 figure = 50 men and a ground scale of 1cm = 50 paces for playing the 1814 campaign east of Paris modelled on the Kevin Zucker game..

I've played Age of Eagles by Bill Gray a brigade level game wher we could get Austerlitz on one table.
On the website and in the yahoo group there are all or most of the battles in the Napoleonic Wars with the exception of Leipzig, because the ground scale is 1" = 120 yds and the figure scale is 1 figure = 90 men each move = 30 minutes.

With all sets of rules a battalion is out of scale is out of scale with buildings which looks odd.
The real problem is for the historical gamer because a battle field on the Wargames table is a map with each road, river, forest/wood and hill drawn to scale, but, buildings are too big.
How ever this really depends on what size game you want to play. At Stoke we rented a large upper floor of a shop that wasn't used as now stock was kept on the shop floor.
We had six rooms and games are left on the table so for some unmarried players they can play every evening or all day in school holidays.
Now I live in Wales so I play solo on a 6'x4' table using Chain of Command.
Games depend on taxable size and if they are pick-up games ie 1000 points of bolt action.
In that case for Napoleonic, Halssall's rules 2000 points = 4 to 5 infantry units, 2 cavalry units and 1 battery of Artillery.
If there are enough players then a league table.
I still can't get used to a game of Maurice where each unit has 4 bases. 1 hit and you're down to 25%.

Mike L

Quote from: Dragoon on 24 November 2017, 10:54:29 AM

I still can't get used to a game of Maurice where each unit has 4 bases. 1 hit and you're down to 25%.

Mike L

My God. Your maths is even worse than mine.

Quote from: Dragoon on 24 November 2017, 10:54:29 AM
With all sets of rules a battalion is out of scale is out of scale with buildings which looks odd.
The real problem is for the historical gamer because a battle field on the Wargames table is a map with each road, river, forest/wood and hill drawn to scale, but, buildings are too big.

Let me mount a personal hobby horse for a moment. ;)

How can anyone, who can look at 24 figures and see a battalion of six hundred, not look at a single building and see a village of a couple of dozen houses?

Colour me bemused.

</hobbyhorse>

Many of us can identify one as an isolated individual, but count like trolls when the number is "many"?

One is a farm
Two is a village
Many is a city

It seems very clear.

Quote from: d_Guy on 24 November 2017, 01:59:40 PM
One is a farm
Two is a village
Many is a city

It seems very clear.

You forgot "one and a shed/outhouse is a hamlet"....

At our club we tend to try lots of different rules, but fortunately all seem to like similar things, so while we try lots we tend to agree on what rules to play for each style and era of game.

If we like a set of rules we stay with them, even if they go out of fashion.  eg we only play 2nd edition AK47. 

Quote from: petercooman on 24 November 2017, 02:03:07 PM
You forgot "one and a shed/outhouse is a hamlet"....

;D good point! Since we are dealing in quanta prehaps:
>1,<2 = hamlet
>2,<Many = town
>Many <Many + 1 = megapolis

Conditions all feasible within Kitty's trollish counting system.

I can live with that  :)

Quote from: d_Guy on 24 November 2017, 03:50:09 PM
;D good point! Since we are dealing in quanta prehaps:
>1,<2 = hamlet
>2,<Many = town
>Many <Many + 1 = megapolis

Conditions all feasible within Kitty’s trollish counting system.

Even a bird brain can cope with that, so a cat should cope well. After all they supposed to bae at the level of a 2 yr old child !

Quote from: FierceKitty on 24 November 2017, 11:08:32 AM
My God. Your maths is even worse than mine.

I'm officer material, if Wellington was right , Light Cavalry probably Hussars.

Fred was terrible at maths too. I wonder how some of the other big boys handled it?

25% of the time I struggle with wargames rules, but the other 85% I'm having a great time.

Your maths is good as well !

Quote from: ianrs54 on 25 November 2017, 08:44:18 AM
Your maths is good as well !

Not really, means there is an overlap of 10% where he struggles with the rules, but has a good time none the less.

Gaming whole drinking perhaps  :D

Error: Double post!

At least everyone in this cockpit seems aware that maths has an -s on the end.

I'm happy to have provided some amusement.
However, just to help those who aren't bright enough to have realised that the last phrase should have read "down BY 25%".

My best regards
Hoping I have been of some assistance

Mike Leese

Quote from: FierceKitty on 25 November 2017, 10:03:48 AM
At least everyone in this cockpit seems aware that maths has an -s on the end.

Oh, for the love of.....! One math, two maths, many mathses.

Quote from: d_Guy on 25 November 2017, 02:44:17 PM
Oh, for the love of.....! One math, two maths, many mathses.

Not really, one mathematics, two mathematics, many mathematics!   ;D :D

Johnny Mathses?

Chances are

Mathematics is plural and very useful in a laboratory.  ;D

When it comes to math, I feel we should just take a lesson from our long eared friends - bunnies (rabbits to non-bunny people). Their math is quite simple.

1 = 1
2 = 2
3 = 3
4 = 4
Hrair* = everything over the number  4, be it 5 or 5,00, 500,00 or..........

* pronounced "Ha-rare"

The above lesson is in the language of Lapine, and is qouted form Watership Down by Mr. Richard Adams, RIP.

Terry

Totally agree: arithmetic + algebra + geometry  = 3  -  maths.

Quote from: mollinary on 25 November 2017, 03:40:44 PM
Not really, one mathematics, two mathematics, many mathematics!   ;D :D

That's how we count to estimate how far away a thunder storm is.  ;)

That's not maths - that#s arithmetic.  Maths has letters and doesn't mean anything outside of physics.

Life was so much simpler at primary school when we just had sums. To be honest though to British ears math really, really, REALLY grates. And to British eyes so does honor, color, aluminum etc., etc.

Yep.....Put time back to the 'times tables' that were printed on the back of those old exercise books.....(Mostly red covers ?  ;D ;D ;D ;D)

Cheers - an old f*rt.

Looking back at my previous comment, we really do have a weird language - honour is pronounced onuh and colour is pronounced culler, at least in this neck of the woods ( argh - don't get me started on wood and woods - both meaning a large number of trees. It's another example of how American and English linguistics have parted. I can't even explain to myself how the wood and the woods works - it's just in English it sounds right and American it doesn't, eg I would say, the skirmishers in the wood; a US rulebook will say, the skirmishers in the woods; but equally I would say I am walking the dog to the woods this afternoon. It just baffles me because there doesn't seem to be a rule - it just is the way it is).

Too true, Andy.  X_X ;D ;D ;D ;D

Cheers - Phil

Quote from: Leman on 06 April 2018, 04:44:10 PM
Life was so much simpler at primary school when we just had sums. To be honest though to British ears math really, really, REALLY grates. And to British eyes so does honor, color, aluminum etc., etc.

Well, English speaking British ears  ;) 

In Welsh maths makes no sense at all  :-B :P

Show me a Welshman who can't speak English and I'll show you a four year old.

Based on my shoddy memory of the odd bits of Welsh the cleaners taught me when I spent around 9 months in Aberystwyth, forty years ago, isn't math the Welsh for kind or something similar?

You were in Aber forty years back, Ithorial? I only missed you by twenty, very close :D

Correct, math (pl. mathau - pronounced math eye) is indeed the Welsh for kind, as in type.

Quote from: toxicpixie on 08 April 2018, 09:53:54 AM
You were in Aber forty years back, Ithorial? I only missed you by twenty, very close :D

Blink of an eye ... on a geological time scale :)

Or the length of a wet afternoon staring at the sea :D

Quote from: Leman on 08 April 2018, 09:25:41 AM
Show me a Welshman who can't speak English and I'll show you a four year old.

Too true  ;)

I was half asleep when I posted and it was entirely clear to me what I meant.  Obviously the old telepathy wasn't working so you missed the subtext!  :-[  ;)

The Welsh for mathematics is mathemateg.  I went to a Welsh school and my math teacher's bête noire was the anglicised abbreviating to maths, so it was drummed into us to use math - a habit I still default to today! 

Obviously the American abbreviating to math is entirely wrong-sounding, but it's fine for Cymric abbreviating...  :P

Depends on the kind of math then.  ;)

if you really want to have fun with word games think of how many different ways we, at least in America, use the word "up". Just a few examples - go up, fed up, pile, up, reach up, touch up, speed up, slow up, do up (this one may be a southern slang though), fess up, dig up, start up, blow up, grow up, step up, get up, etc. You get the idea.

And then also here, there are regional differences. A bag in the upper east coast is a sack, while a soda in the upper mid-west is a beverage to mix with bourbon or scotch, while in the south it means any soft drink that is carbonated. But I never heard the term sums for math over here anywhere. However I know it well from watching so many British movies and series.

Terry

Sums is specifically Arithmetic rather than Maths as such.

As well as "slow up" you can "slow down" but I've never heard any one say "speed down"

Quote from: Leman on 08 April 2018, 09:25:41 AM
Show me a Welshman who can't speak English and I'll show you a four year old.

Coworkers wife didn't speak English until she was 8, this would have been 45 years ago. Odd thing is she is from Barry and a Thatcherite, from a very Tory family.

Sums is specifically addition

Not when you're five.

In whihc a n00b sticks his oar in...

So...ramblingly stumbling to my point, what do you chaps think? 

Are there too many rulesets out there now? 

Can there be too many?
I welcome the variety and depth of current offerings.
I also think that the good rules now leave most offerings form 20 or 30 years ago in their dust.
I do worry that the hobby is getting salami sliced into smaller and smaller incompativle groups.
I then realise that we're all big smart boys and girls who can absorb more than one set of rules.
The fact that some releases attract a big following (Chain of Command anybody?) illustrates that we are a band of connoisseurs.

Do you buy rules only to never play them as they're basically inferior copies to other rules you've already done? 

I've bought one or two and thought, that was; unplayable junk / a poor mash up of several leading sets / different, but inferior.
Now that rules average £20 a pop, I'm a cautious buyer and tend to lurk until a few trusted reviews have been published.

Is it good there are so many rules being published?

Yes and no: Quantity doesn't necessarily equal quantity - through I think we are in a golden age of rules that provide an enjoyable game.


Have you found any truely innovative rules lately?

Studio Tomahawk's Saga and Congo, each for rather different reasons.
Too Fat Lardies Cain of Command for the scouting phase and challenging command options.
Tribal by Mana Press looks quite interesting.

Do you think the current focus on gamist abstraction is good or bad?

Abstraction can be many things to many readers.
If you mean games that can be played without prior reference to 8 volumes of comtemporary drill manuals, or where the shooting modifiers don't stretch over 2 columns of the ironicaly named "Quick reference sheet", then yes.

I like a game where I can make commander decisions, am not constantly reaching for geometry tools, and where playing out combat doesn't induce a migraine.
For me, the gold lies in the questions that the game poses to each commander, the outcome of decisions.
Movement matters, it breathes life into a game.

Thoughtful post, Steve, and welcome to the forum.

Seconded :)

There are some "offerings from 20 or 30 years ago" that still continue to shine, but yes many have been left in the dust :-\

Welcome n00b.
Thoughtful answers, but you've reawakened one of my many betes noires and I may rant - for which I apologise.

Are there too many rulesets out there now?

Can there be too many? Yes.  
I welcome the variety and depth of current offerings.
I also think that the good rules now leave most offerings form 20 or 30 years ago in their dust.I think you're ignoring the appeal of the simplicity and nostaliga for old sets.
I do worry that the hobby is getting salami sliced into smaller and smaller incompativle groups.I won't play against you because my army is June 1944 and yours is obviously September 1944
I then realise that we're all big smart boys and girls who can absorb more than one set of rules.But how many? How many sets do you need? If you play skirmish, division and army levels, that's 3 per period. Multiply that by the number of periods you play thats a lot of rule sets.
The fact that some releases attract a big following (Chain of Command anybody?) illustrates that we are a band of connoisseurs.Discerning, certainly, but is part of that the "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" concept? Years ago, if you did ancients, you did WRG. Everybody did WRG because ... everybody did WRG. If everyone at a club plays BKC, then everyone is on the same page, and everyone is happy. Apart for the rule lawyer who is never happy.

Do you buy rules only to never play them as they're basically inferior copies to other rules you've already done?  

I've bought one or two and thought, that was; unplayable junk / a poor mash up of several leading sets / different, but inferior.
Now that rules average £20 a pop, I'm a cautious buyer and tend to lurk until a few trusted reviews have been published.

Is it good there are so many rules being published?

Yes and no: Quantity doesn't necessarily equal quantity - through I think we are in a golden age of rules that provide an enjoyable game.It's the difference between the human and rat way of reproduction. Humans have one child at a time and look after it, whatever. Rats have many children and eat the weakest. Wargames rules now are a bit ratty.

I would also pick up on the trendy "systems" e.g.  Frostgarve or Gangs of Rome. A manufacturer releases a set of rules and lots of figures and scenery and suppliments. Everyone goes crazy, spends a fortune on them ... then next year a manufacturere releases a set of rules and lots of figures ...  


Have you found any truely innovative rules lately?

Studio Tomahawk's Saga and Congo, each for rather different reasons.
Too Fat Lardies Cain of Command for the scouting phase and challenging command options.
Tribal by Mana Press looks quite interesting.

Do you think the current focus on gamist abstraction is good or bad?

Abstraction can be many things to many readers.
If you mean games that can be played without prior reference to 8 volumes of comtemporary drill manuals, or where the shooting modifiers don't stretch over 2 columns of the ironicaly named "Quick reference sheet", then yes.

I like a game where I can make commander decisions, am not constantly reaching for geometry tools, and where playing out combat doesn't induce a migraine.
For me, the gold lies in the questions that the game poses to each commander, the outcome of decisions.
Movement matters, it breathes life into a game.

QuoteI also think that the good rules now leave most offerings form 20 or 30 years ago in their dust. FSN - I think you're ignoring the appeal of the simplicity and nostaliga for old sets.

I don't discount nostalgia, but simplicity? A lot of old rules are horrendously complex with many subsystems and much faff in the name of "accuracy" at every step. Then they produce outcomes that are anything but. Ofc we probably all have rosey tinted "society is always collapsing, the young no longer honour the gods/their fathers, have funny haircuts and every man is writing a book" glasses and only remember the good bits and the good sets :D

On which note, Tacforce II is being reissued, complete with "mini-supplements" covering every variant of every vehicle in excruciating, redundant and identical detail :D

QuoteFSN - I would also pick up on the trendy "systems" e.g.  Frostgrave or Gangs of Rome. A manufacturer releases a set of rules and lots of figures and scenery and supplements. Everyone goes crazy, spends a fortune on them ... then next year a manufacturer releases a set of rules and lots of figures ... 

Whilst I agree to a fair extent, Frostgrave is a bad example. It's very very strong on player base, has really good output (new supplement released this week with rejigged XP rules and a new campaign!), and has spawned a semi-sequel in Ghost Archipelago which seems to have increased it's market not divided it :) But you do definitely need a good "hook" as well as good rules, otherwise I agree - a few games "stick" (Frostgrave, Malifaux, Saga), others... sink.

You're thinking of the Silver Age of wargaming, when National Characteristics were the thing, and EEEHLC was available of 15 points but required a sub-General. I'm thinking of the Golden Age; of the Blessed Featherstone, the Immaculate Grant and the Wise Terry; a time when the only die was a d6, but it could be white, sometimes black and rarerly red; when your measuring stick was in inches because, as was properly recognised, the millimeter is an invention of Satan, or worse, the French; a time when a Sherman was equal to a Panther and you couldn't field PzIIIs because Airfix didn't do them. It was a time sculpted in Plasticine and sealed in banana oil; coloured in enamels and mounted on Cornflakes packets. 

It was a time when China was what you drank tea out of and the Franco-Prussian War was Jena and Auerstadt not Spicheren and Sedan; Challengers had 17pdrs and the best tank in the world was the Centurion.

A time of discovery. A time of innocence and innovation. A golden time.

I NEVER willingly did WRG until DBx had its day. And I don't miss that either.

Quote from: fsn on 14 June 2018, 11:33:50 AM
You're thinking of the Silver Age of wargaming, when National Characteristics were the thing, and EEEHLC was available of 15 points but required a sub-General. I'm thinking of the Golden Age; of the Blessed Featherstone, the Immaculate Grant and the Wise Terry; a time when the only die was a d6, but it could be white, sometimes black and rarerly red; when your measuring stick was in inches because, as was properly recognised, the millimeter is an invention of Satan, or worse, the French; a time when a Sherman was equal to a Panther and you couldn't field PzIIIs because Airfix didn't do them. It was a time sculpted in Plasticine and sealed in banana oil; coloured in enamels and mounted on Cornflakes packets. 

It was a time when China was what you drank tea out of and the Franco-Prussian War was Jena and Auerstadt not Spicheren and Sedan; Challengers had 17pdrs and the best tank in the world was the Centurion.

A time of discovery. A time of innocence and innovation. A golden time.

Ugh!

Having played a set Featherstone's rules when he died, it wern't no golden age....

Quote from: ianrs54 on 14 June 2018, 12:10:54 PM
Having played a set Featherstone's rules when he died, it wern't no golden age....

Uh oh....I agree again.

I agree thrice :D

Course my stuff is purrrrrrfec.... :D

I don't... Herrumph.

Nice post Steve.

As far as I'm concerned wargamers have never had it so good. There has never been such a breadth of rules, figures and scenics nor such a plethora of information.

Rules sets will come and go, figure lines will appear and disappear - twas always thus. But, thanks to the interwebs we can often source figures long since "out-of-print" and get updates to rule sets long abandoned by the original publishers.

As to the problem of remembering rules, how hard is it? Wargames rules tend to have very similar underlying structures and there are a limited number of mechanisms being used. Quick Ref charts list the minutiae of factors, exceptions, distances.

Frankly, so long as everyone enjoys themselves, I'm not too fussed if we don't get the rules exactly right.

Then again I'm not too fussed if figures are exactly right, providing everyone knows what is what.

"Accept certain inalienable truths, prices will rise, politicians will philander, you too will get old, and when you do you'll fantasize that when you were young prices were reasonable, politicians were noble and children respected their elders." :)

........and houses were always the right size.

Quote from: Leman on 14 June 2018, 02:18:13 PM
........and houses were always the right size.

:D :D :D :D .... if only :)

Quote from: Ithoriel on 14 June 2018, 02:43:44 PM
:D :D :D :D .... if only :)

Mine is certainly getting too small for all the unfinished projects.

I didn't drill down on rules during my first n00b post.

What I do see in the contemporary hobby are some strong trends and "crossover".

Crossover from the world of boardgames and RPGs is certainly influencing the waves of skirmish rules that are arriving.
It's not for everybody.
Skirmish typically makes for small forces (few figures), but requires more and detailed terrain.
Rules seem easier to produce, but tend to come and go in a hurry.
With that comes the race to produce the "Next big thing".

I certainly see a larger manufacturers looking to follow the "Nottingham school" of gamer supply.
Frequent releases, versions, codexing - and a well trained cohort of obedient fanboys will lap this stuff up.

For us older types, there are companies with more stable release schedules and more complete offerings.

What the fanboys praise as "support" will look to the grognards as "nickel-and-diming" (I'm not sure there's a Queen's english term).


The big game-changer of course has been the Internet.
Suddenly an obscure hobby is accessible across the globe, and gamers can share reviews, battle reports and photographs.
Relatively small manufacturers can reach another hemisphere provided they can master the intricacies of postage, packing and customs.
As one who once bought figures unseen based on text descriptions in magazine advertisements, it's a luxury to visit a fine website with pictures of the product and online purchase.

I've drifted somewhere away form the rules, so let me return with a question.
What drives the market?
* Do the rules sell the figures?
* Do the figures sell the rules?
* Does interest in a specific setting draw customers to figures and rules?
* Do we increasingly follow the "Nottingham model": sourcing paints, brushes, figures and rules form a single supplier?
* Where does scale/size fit into the whole picture?

Quote from: Ithoriel on 14 June 2018, 02:05:29 PM
As far as I'm concerned wargamers have never had it so good. There has never been such a breadth of rules, figures and scenics nor such a plethora of information.

Rules sets will come and go, figure lines will appear and disappear - twas always thus...

I'm a little confused. Are people complaining about TOO MUCH CHOICE?

I like M&S Sandwiches - I have 2 or 3 favourites, but I don't fret bout the other 8 types they make that I don't like. What I do is this: I choose not to buy them. I literally pretend that they don't exist. So when someone posts about "frost grave" I have not the slightest idea what it is, what the figures look like, or even when or where it is set. I think it might be cold.

Just buy what you like and ignore the rest  ;)

Hi

I don't think people are concerned about having too much choice in rules (or figures for that matter) as such. It is just that one of the consequences of that is finding enough like minded people to play the rules that you particularly like with.

Cheers Paul

Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 14 June 2018, 05:46:10 PM
Mine is certainly getting too small for all the unfinished projects.

The comment from Leman was a gentle poke at my regular posts on my bete noir - the use of houses a scale below the scale of the figures. 10mm figures and 6mm houses for example.

Though I can also empathise with the need for more lead pile storage space!

Personally I find a set of rules that I like and stick with them.  they may not be perfect, they ay have added a couple of house rules, or adapted the turn order or other minor tweaks, but I stick with them.

I will buy/play other sets if they get good reviews or someone at club buys them.  What I do not to do is play a set of rules because they are "trendy".

At club we play several sets of rules that we  have not considered upgrading eg Peter pigs AK47 Version 2. BKC2. Fire and Fury. Shako

I accept that some people like rules that I find awful,  as long as I do not have to play them that's fine.

Can we have too many?  Probably not , but it does mean  that they are likely to be lest profitable as the more rules for a given period the thinner the "customer pie" has to be sliced

I also prefer rules where they are not spread out over a lots of colour pages that you constantly have to flick through.

Quote from: Ithoriel on 14 June 2018, 06:40:38 PM
The comment from Leman was a gentle poke at my regular posts on my bete noir - the use of houses a scale below the scale of the figures. 10mm figures and 6mm houses for example.

Though I can also empathise with the need for more lead pile storage space!

Ahh - small houses, big soldiers - I see i have much to learn..


I'm doing something similar with a very personal orc tribe setting.
15mm Orcses - living in 10mm Yurts from everybody's favourite mini company.

If there is money in it, and people will buy, the mad avalanche of rules will continue. I was friendly with a  rule publisher in the 1970s. He said, in a sense, the quality of the rules were irrelevant. His expectation was that most of his customers would buy them just to see what they were like, and majority would play a few times, and move on the next set to be published. It could be said that rule buyers are seeking the Holy Grail, and will continue on their quest to find the perfect set of rules no matter what. What amazes me is that people cheerfully  spend £30-£40 on what may well be a pig in a poke. 

Quote from: grahambeyrout on 12 February 2019, 04:05:58 PM
If there is money in it, and people will buy, the mad avalanche of rules will continue. I was friendly with a  rule publisher in the 1970s. He said, in a sense, the quality of the rules were irrelevant. His expectation was that most of his customers would buy them just to see what they were like, and majority would play a few times, and move on the next set to be published. It could be said that rule buyers are seeking the Holy Grail, and will continue on their quest to find the perfect set of rules no matter what. What amazes me is that people cheerfully  spend £30-£40 on what may well be a pig in a poke. 

I've certainly modified my rules-buying in the light of the £20 pricetag.
Some rules i might have bought, with no expectation of play now remain on the shelf (Most recently - What a Tanker).
Other times I'll think carefully before buying - and wait for several on-line reviews.

I'm more amenable to dive in when it's an Osprey priced between £9 and £11.

Back in the days when rules were a fiver for staple binding and thicker card covers, I'd buy anything that caught my eye.


Retail professionals would have something significant to say about "price points" or "elastic demand".

Stolen form David Grech on a different Miniatures Page.

QuoteWith apologies to Emo Phillips this account seems somewhat apropos...

I met a guy at a gathering and he said, "I'd rather be working on my hobbies." I said, "Me too." I asked, "What is your hobby?" He said, "War gaming." I said, "Me too!"
I asked, "Boardgames or video games or miniatures?" He said, "Miniatures." I said, "Me too!"
I asked, "Role playing or tabletop?" He said, "Tabletop." I said, "Me too!"
I asked, "Fantasy or historical or sci-fi?" He said, "Historical." I said, "Me too!"
I asked, "What period – ACW or American Revolution or WW2 or Colonial or Napoleonics or modern...?" He said, "Napoleonics." I said, "Me too!"
I asked, "What figure scale 6mm, 10mm, 15mm, 20mm, 25mm?" He said, "15mm."
I said, "Me too!" I asked, "True 15mm or 15/18mm?" He said, "15/18mm." I said, "Me too!"
I asked, "What ground scale 1" = 50 meters or 1 cm = 1 meter or something else?" He said, "1" = 50 meters." I said, "Me too!"
I asked, "What figure to man ratio – 1:20, 1:40, 1:60, 1:100?" He said, "1:60." I said, "Me too!"
I asked, "Based in strips of 1x3 or 2x2?" He said, "1x3." I said, "Me too!"
I asked, "What rule set?" He said, "Empire." I said, "Me too!" I asked, "What version of Empire, III or V?" He said, "V."
I yelled, "EMPIRE V RUINED EVERYTHING!" and walked away to go join my wife.

My wife said, "I saw you talking with Harold, his wife says that he war games, you guys might have something you could play together."
I said, "No, we have nothing in common."