![Very Cool! Make Your Own Star Wars: Legion Imperial Agent & Officer | Review [7 Days Early Access]](https://images.beastsofwar.com/2025/12/Star-Wars-Imperial-Agent-_-Officer-coverimage-V3-225-127.jpg)
Cult Of Games XLBS: How Many Tabletop Rules Do We Need & Should They Be Simple Or Complex?
January 17, 2021 by crew
For some website features, you will need a FREE account and for some others, you will need to join the Cult of Games.
Or if you have already joined the Cult of Games Log in now
What difference will having a FREE account make?
Setting up a Free account with OnTableTop unlocks a load of additional features and content (see below). You can then get involved with our Tabletop Gaming community, we are very helpful and keen to hear what you have to say. So Join Us Now!
Free Account Includes
- Creating your own project blogs.
- Rating and reviewing games using our innovative system.
- Commenting and ability to upvote.
- Posting in the forums.
- Unlocking of Achivments and collectin hobby xp
- Ability to add places like clubs and stores to our gaming database.
- Follow games, recommend games, use wishlist and mark what games you own.
- You will be able to add friends to your account.
What's the Cult of Games?
Once you have made a free account you can support the community by joing the Cult of Games. Joining the Cult allows you to use even more parts of the site and access to extra content. Check out some of the extra features below.
Cult of Games Membership Includes
- Reduced ads, for a better browsing experience (feature can be turned on or off in your profile).
- Access to The Cult of Games XLBS Sunday Show.
- Extra hobby videos about painting, terrain building etc.
- Exclusive interviews with the best game designers etc.
- Behind the scenes studio VLogs.
- Access to our live stream archives.
- Early access to our event tickets.
- Access to the CoG Greenroom.
- Access to the CoG Chamber of Commerce.
- Access the CoG Bazarr Trading Forum.
- Create and Edit Records for Games, Companies and Professionals.
Supported by (Turn Off)
Supported by (Turn Off)
Supported by (Turn Off)
up too late
But in earliest!
It’s the XLBS Show………..Happy Sunday fellow CoGs!
.
It just happens to be my dear old mother’s birthday. She’s 80 as of today. I’m going to broadcast this episode for her as she wanted to watch something that she’d never seen yet in her life and was guaranteed to make her laugh! Don’t let me down @warzan
.
(love the book club video)
.
I don’t think that I’d like to be restricted to just one rule set for every game. There are many sets that are cool and yet very different.
I resist anything that asks me to be generic in any respect. One ruleset makes gaming just too generic. How boring gaming would become. IMHO
.
If a company does not create its own set of rules for its games, then it just becomes a figure/model shop, doesn’t it??? Sure, they can create some fluff for the game but not too long ago, folks were bitching about “too much fluff” is ruining gaming. I think that there are two groups of gamers that really want a different experience. Some just want it cut and dry and play to win. Others want the fluff, the flavor, and the experience not just “who’s going to win”….. IMHO
.
Also, the rules need to be printed out in a book form, not that living in the Ether bull$h/t! I want my rules on a bookshelf in my hobby room, not in a fraking cloud somewhere.
(ok….stepping down off my soapbox now)
.
.
@avernos I have started reading “McCarthy’s Bar: A Journey of Discovery In Ireland” and I have to say, “money well spent”.
So far what I’ve learned is…….
1)Ireland is a wonderful place.
2)Never ever ever rent a car in Ireland!
3)Never ask a question of a native in Ireland and expect a quick answer, long conversations with total strangers are the norm.
4)Noddles are way overpriced for some reason.
I’m about a third through the book and have noticed that there are many parallels to my stomping grounds here in Kansas. It’s kind of scary. Here I thought idiosyncratic behavior was ours alone. BUT, the noodles here are very cheap!
I’m glad you’re not only enjoying it but that you managed to get to the mail ahead of your wife
Yes indeed!
I lucked out Thursday when it arrived, as she was scheduled to work one and a half hours later than I.
Not that I’ve kept it hid from her, (it’s been in the hobby studio next to my 40k and Conquest figures when I’m not reading it). My Justin Puppet,(known here as ‘PJ’), has been keeping an eye on it. But that’s another story!
McCarthy’s Bar is one Mrs G’s favourites. When she finds it it’ll go on the to-read pile.
Up early. Drinking coffee, waiting for 3dprint to finish. Happy Sunday.
I feel the sudden need to change my name to Maximilien Robespierre
Pleased to meet you Max. I loved that Reign of Terror thing you did, it certainly brought people up short.
Destroy the Aristocracy
Happy Sunday COGs hope your all safe and well. I really think Warren is on the right track planning Waterloo with Quell Affair and Wofun. Not only will it look blooming amazing but it’s affordable but you can field forces closer to the number without having organise the giant Waterloo game held in Glasgow in 2019. I really enjoyed recreating the Alamo and it looked fantastic. I used the Deguello rule set which is a short simple reaction based rule set aimed towards a hour and half game. I was playing the game for and with my nephews so wanted something that was relatively simple with a pace that kept the interest. I can see the appeal of One ruleset to Rule them All, allowing players to be walked through a series or genres and periods, as Lloyd mentioned there’s a time issue in learning different ruleset, however, personally, looking through different and differing rulesets has always been part of the hobby for me alongside the collecting, the model work and the play but then I will freely admit that’s the nerd part of me that craves the detailed ruleset with built in narrative. As Gerry mentioned it really does depend on the gamer and even how the gamer feels on the day but that’s why I enjoy a choice of different rulesets to peruse. I do agree with Ben that companies will turn out more simple rules as some gamers search for that instant hit they can get from online games like Total War. However I really don’t think we should ever as a community reduce or restrict our options. In my opinion such a approach stifles creativity and will lead us to become in the long term too rigid in our gaming outlook and bored. I really don’t see an issue with difference for difference sake, it’s more to chose from and besides Gerry might have gaps on his shelf if there’s less ruleset, we can’t be having that….Restricting the call for differing rulesets may also put off future projects and rulesets from smaller companies and individuals like Joseph McCollugh or Alex over in Warploque. The Warploque rules are far from bland and has a great narrative that larger rulesets lack a joy just to read. Why should the larger companies like Games Workshop or Warlord set the standard and why would that rulesets standard be chosen, because it suits that companies long term financial plan. I don’t want to buying my games, minis and rulesets from some Amazon like hub that we all play like drones. That’s an extreme example I know but via difference, if you want something simple that suits you go find it cowboy it’s your hobby but maybe one day you’ll want that more detailed, different or simply wacky resource and it might not be there when you do. I’d rather have a ruleset gathering a little dust than never have been shared. The idea of a open source database of rules is a good idea however I’d hope it’s completely intellectually protected and independent and not a free ideas page for the larger companies allowing them to steal and incorporate new ideas before the author has had chance to publish. Excuse the long write up as the saying goes i start then get too lazy to stop.
Great golden buttons and discussion today. See you all Monday.
Laser jizz out the bottom.
Isn’t it great to be a CoG? 😀
The best rules are simple … but elegant – as in almost “fiendishly” designed. Rules that, without charts or tables or cards or stat lines, encourage tactically realistic (or at least plausible, depending on your genre) behavior from the the commander. Rules that enable players to come to sensible tactical decisions on their own, reflecting that works in the game is also what worked on the actual battlefield.
Such rules are usually simple, but deceptively so. Like chess … the rules can be explained in five minutes … but you’ll spend a lifetime mastering the game.
The cornerstone upon which any GOOD system is really designed – the TURN SEQUENCE. Clear, unambiguous, no-nonsense, and not open to different interpretations … a solid turn sequence is the heart of any good rules set, and strict adherence to the turn sequence answers 2/3 of any rules questions that might come up in game play.
While I agree the turn sequence is important personally for me the command and control is the part of the rules I look at first. If I like that then I will look further into the game
Agree @torros – Command and Control is indeed a vital part of the game. I feel like something of a hypocrite saying that, since my favorite game of all time (Panzer Leader series) HAS NO command and control system whatsoever. But I’ve never claimed that game is perfect, and lots of people have published their own hose rules to bring that elements into the game.
A good ruleset for me is one where good players make decisions that mimic what good commanders would make in real life, the abstraction hasn’t lost the conceptual essence of reality that matters.
Indeed, @coxjul – some of my favorite historical games have put players in historical situations, the face the same problems, they counter the same threats, the overcome the same limitations, and for reasons that are “organic” (if not hit-you-over-the-head explicit) … they make the same decisions as the historical commanders did … the player finishes the game, WINS the game, and feels great.
Then you open the history and show where the historical commander(s) made the same decisions for largely the same reasons …
You wanna talk about immersive? You just played that game with that commander’s ghost behind your shoulder.
(cue spooke music) …
😀
Happy *YAWN* Sunday!
I can imagine an open day at Castle Dunans turning into a scene from Spartacus (or LoB)…
Warren ( a bit too loudly): I’m Laird of Chaol Ghleann.
Other1: No I’m Laird of Chaol Ghleann
Other2: I’m Laird of Chaol Ghleann.
Etc.
Not wanting to dampen the poor, wee Laird’s seat, here’s a quote from one of the sites flogging these for £25 a piece.
“The term ‘Laird’ tends to be reserved for the owner of an estate in Scotland, occasionally referred by the owner themselves, or most likely by those employed by the estate. The term is used as a description as opposed to a legal title. “Laird”, a Scottish term, is a title reserved for those who own larger estates or pieces of land in Scotland and can be interchangeable in a traditional sense with Lord. Though, in modern times, a Lordship and the term ‘Lord’ is associated with nobility and peerage, of which the word Laird is not.”
An aspect to the ruleset discussion that wasn’t mentioned is competitive/tournament play. That only works well where randomness is minimised and a player’s ability to build and master a list flexible enough to cope with varied opponents and scenarios. That requires a level of complexity in the ruleset beyond a casual gamer’s needs. I only want to be getting my head around one system at that level at a time.
An experienced club/group gamer then wants a handful of a variety of mid-complexity games that they can play semi-regularly or have a burst of play through a campaign for a couple of months. Complexity is mitigated through the availability of resources like unit cards with special rules and specific stats readily available. I made my own electronic equivalents for Infinity N3 so I didn’t forget to use or do things; I’m pleased N4 has moved into out of the tables onto the unit stats to make them more accessible; having said that I’ll probably be more if a CodeOne player at club now and am grateful that ruleset opens the game up to more entrants when it comes to short campaigns.
Then there’ simpler pickup games, ideal for a fun, social experience where winning isn’t the object and I don’t care that a lot of it came down to dice-rolls rather than skill.
Standardised ISO rulesets? Nooooooooooo! They would kill innovation and quickly fall by the wayside as they become irrelevant and inconvenient (35 years in IT provides plenty of examples).
What we should recognise are smaller, reusable patterns for core mechanics that become familiar (like Lloyd’s gamepad example). This is very recognisable in the boardgame world and helps players move from one game to another. It’s then the combination of those with bespoke, setting or genre specific extensions that create a game. Take Saga as an example… (Glug)… or D&D 5th, or even Infinity’s D20 with AROs (which I love). They’re proven and popular. Sometimes an attempt to extend doesn’t work… but hats off for trying!
sometimes I like elegant rules , sometimes I like to wallow in rules like a pig in $%$%, lettimg them wash into every nook a cranny. Short answer , there isn’t a short answer
A @warzan hilt… why do I feel love honey is getting a new sale…
Winter Book club ????? What I have to wait until JUNE !!!!
***** Glares in fake High Dudgeon ********
I am stil waiting for this blatantly Hemispherist language to be retratcted
****** Scowls darkly while seething in a surprisingly invogourating aura of righteous rage ************
It’s winter somewhere 😉
Had this very discussion the other day with my gamer crew and it hit simiar points. The idea certainly isn’t new. Back in the day the system was GURPs, more recently Pathfinder and now 5th Ed. One thing I do think helps is if the games have themes that are not too far apart, Game Designers Workshop did a pretty good effort back in the day aligning thier roles playing games Traveller-The New Era , Twighlight 200, Cadilacs and Dinosours, and Dark Consiparacy. It worked well because they were all adventure/Sci-Fi to some degree, with crossovers in themes and action.
There are WAYYYYY too many rule books in common usage (at least for historicals). Too many rulebooks that all employ there own specific basing system, there own figure ratio etc etc….
…and the end result in this is that it splits the playerbase, makes it harder to find games, and perhaps this (in part) is responsible for the drop in popularity of historicals in favour of sci-fi/fantasy.
Sci-fi/fantasy is a bit different as usually it’s all about the IP (the rules are secondary) in the decision to purchase. But for historicals?
Well first, are you going to play a grand tactical style game (where the figures are based on a “diorama” style static base), “tactical” level game (where you move the figures around in formation), or a skirmish level game (where you move individual figures around).
Next the figures themselves, 28mm, 15mm, 10mm, 6mm, or even 2mm?
Basically if you go to a club night you’ll probably find a few with a Napoleonic army each, but due to the rule set each player has adopted (or figure scale) that the armies are incompatible for getting a game in. I do in a way envy players with Space Marine armies, because they KNOW if the opponent has collected Space Marines they KNOW what rule set is going to be used.
When I started gaming Napoleonics were 15mm and Newbury Quick Play (Newbury as in a Wargames club that published it’s own in house rules). 15mm dues to cost (as 25mm metals were just too expansive), and Newbury because there wasn’t another set that was easily available (and even if you used a different ruleset, the rules authors had adopted the Newbury Basing system, so you didn’t have to rebase your entire army).
Nowadays rules authors seek to “lock you in” to their specific rule system. Sometimes this is driven in part because the rules have been published by a figure manufacturer wanting to sell you their figures. A perfect example of this is the new ACW rules/figures from Warlord. Buy your armies from them and you are pretty much locked into buying their figures and rules (as other sets of rules will struggle to be converted to use bases of 20 figures 2 ranks deep).
Gone are the common basing standards, and everyone is trying to do their own thing and make it difficult for players to change. So yes there are too many rule books, but it’s not going to change (as the big manufacturers have the marketing budget to drown out the smaller independents and stop their rules getting any traction in gaming circles).
Simple or complicated? Trick question here. I’d say as complicated as needs to to reflect the period. As periods in wargaming change, so does the technology. As the technology changes, so does the complexity.
Rules for a Dark Age game “should” be simpler than a set of WW2 rules, however there’s also a finite amount of player attention available when it comes to rules. So rather than making a set of Dark Age rule just “simple” there’s also room to go perhaps more “in depth” in areas that you couldn’t in a set of WW2 rules (such as morale). This has pretty much been the trend since the 1980s through to the early 00s (thus the idea of the era sets the complexity now goes out the window). Lately however rules have become overly simple (and this being marketed as a virtue), using card driven mechanics, “battle boards” (when we used to use pen and paper) etc etc. Alas this has got to the point where the rules don’t reflect the period they are supposed to represent very well. Other than the overwhelming mass of “skirmish” level gaming rules, when it comes to mass battle then the rules published in the last decade haven’t been very good (Still using Johnny Reb II here for my ACW games and that was published over 25 years ago).
Yay let the XLBS hilarity begin.
Asimov is a great sci-fi writer for quality book’s.
Justin is recovering from the water Warren gave him??? Lol
That black lightsaber one’s handle would make a good darkelder tower.
We’ll see Warren being chatted up by one of the Kardashians now?
You should have went for land near dyce then you could have been a Lord of dyce @warzan
I think, if I remember rightly, Plo Koon used an orange lightsabre in the old Jedi Power Battles videogame….
Gah, and @warzan just got to the relevant page in the video 😀
Another great show Guys loved the ender video.
I would hate to be restricted to the number of rule sets available. We enjoy reading and playing new rules, if a ruleset is bad then it won’t (with the exception of G.W.) get any real traction with gamers and will disappear. In terms of thematic rule systems Peter Pig is always a good one to look at and for army lists that don’t allow max/min By Fire and Sword. What really makes a good game for me is not the rules, but the people I game with. One issue I do have with rule sets and explaining them to new players is the actual layout and indexing of the rule book. That is one area where I do think many rules systems fall down badly.
I still use Legends of the High Seas which was based on the old LotR rules. I haven’t found a better set of rules for pirates.
I like the idea of an open source rule set, it would make life easier switching games and genres. The problem we have these days is trying to remember all the different rules systems we play.
By the way @warzan I’m called Bixia Shuai which is Chinese for Handsome Majesty or Handsome King. I get called that by friends and family in China………(My wife gave me the name after teaching her sarcasm…but I’m still called a King lol)
@warhammergrimace I’d like to check out your ‘Legends of the High Seas’ rules for Pirate play. Who makes it? I’ve found more than one set of rules that use that name.
I’m curious to see the differences between it and Firelock Games ‘Blood and Plunder’ and ‘Oak and Iron’. Which I currently use and love.
There is always room for more rulesets in my hobby room! (I guess I don’t agree with Warren at all on this subject) ?
Legends of the high Seas is an old Warhammer Historical rule set.
I love SAGA and Age of Magic. My gaming group is not really interested in history while I am. With SAGA’s rules being 1 core set expended per universe. So my friends can make fantasy armies and I can do more historical stuff. In Age of Magic the factions are really archetypes and you can do what you want with. I’m getting into the more historical SAGA universes as well and I don’t think my gaming group will follow, but because the rules are so similar I think I can play an Age of Hannibal army against an Age of Magic army without problems or having to write any rules. It won’t be perfectly balanced, but we play for fun, not competition.
The moment he puts the nun chucks under his arms is the moment the arm gets chopped off XD
I think Lloyd’s right about Saga. Using the battle-boards is exactly the experience Warren’s describing, and the fact that it’s coming from a dice pool is immaterial. The dice and the boards “deal you a hand” and you have to play that, or dig in and hope for better next turn.
The card thing in games isnt exactly new. Piquet was doing it 20 years ago and I doubt it was new then either
What we need is the exact opposite of open covers all periods sets of rules. We need rules like there used to be that tie the time periods even further. I really don’t think that a set of rules for Napoleonics can be used for ACW for example without so many ammendments to make it no longer worthwhile and you end up with bland and uninteresting rule sets
^^^ Yes to this. Having a game system that tries to be “friendly” to too wide a time period only invites ambiguity in rules sets, bewildering special rules and mods, and let’s face it, infuriating and depressing “entry level” mediocrity and banality in the rule set.
Now, different EDITIONS of a base rule set that cover different time periods would be cool. But these have to be EDITIONS – not EXPANSIONS. Expansions are just a few new rules and tables for an existing system … while Editions implies a stand-alone rule set that, yes … may share some DNA with the rules set (like @torros ‘ exampe of Napoleonics to ACW), but is a STAND ALONE system with its own charts, manuevers, range tables, unit purchase menus, etc.
Otherwise you run the risk of CONFEDERATE CIVIL WAR REGIMENTS “FORMING SQUARES” … and thus the possibility of me coming at your table with a fire axe. (rage) (rage) (rage)
The plethora of game systems we have today I think is borne out of a pursuit of innovation. If we did not have it then the only sci-fi game would pretty much be 40k and even that would not have seen the small attempts to modernise it that have been behind the last couple of editions.
But we don’t need every game to reinvent the wheel and I would point to Mantics new Armada naval game. Which licenced the Black Seas rules from Warlord and made some tweaks to allow for a fantasy flavour. Fundamentally the same game but attempting to keep a unique flavour.
Core Space should also get a mention. Colin from Battlesystems talks a lot about how he uses that ruleset for lots of other game settings. It is a mechanically light but flexible system that gains it’s depth in character abilities and scenario design.
@Warren If you’re planning a trip into doing Napolenoics then a few ideas/input from me….
“Embrace your inner Grognard”, a lot (nearly all) of the discussion about rules was using examples from the same genre (skirmish based/low model count/”simple” rulesets). Obviously this hasn’t been scratching that wargaming “itch” you have developed over the past few years, as I’ve seen you wander away from your older favourites of Sci fi/fantasy gaming into an interest in all things historical.
So the first thing you need to decide is what kind of historical game you want to do. More “Skirmish” style games (just with a more historical flavour such as Sharpe’s Practice), A mass battle game (which I think you’re leaning towards with your comments about a “grand spectacle”), or a grand tactical game (which is more akin to a boardgame with static based units in a diorama where you don’t change formation on the tabletop).
Figures and scale you’ve already said you’re looking at using the Wofun flats. If Gerry is looking at getting the Peninsula figures, then it would only make better sense to jump into that theatre (rather than doing Waterloo. This would allow you to join up your collections together to play REALLY big battles). Rather than one of you collecting all the French or all the British/Spanish/Portugese, it would probably be better you look at collecting two opposing armies each (so that you don’t need the other there to play). I’d also assume you might be looking at getting the 18mm flats (as you get double the number of figures for your spend AND (if you get the Peninsula campaign figures you get to collect the ones using Peter Dennis’s fantastic artwork).
Next is the rules, now rather than investing in yet another “simple” set of rules (which obviously haven’t been doing the job up until now for you). I’d look at first getting a “primer” for the period. Bruce Quarries “Napoleon’s campaigns in miniature: A wargamers’ guide to the Napoleonic Wars, 1796-1815” can be picked up inexpensively second hand and it even has a set of rules included inside (which is one of the rules we used for years previously) along with explanations of how each nations armies were organised. Secondly I’d look at getting a more “Grognardy” set of rules to peruse before buying any figures (as this can dictate how many figures you’ll be buying). Dave Brown’s “General d’Armee” rules have been popular of late (available from Two Fat Lardies), and also (if you don’t have the time or inclination to dig around the internet httpsDave Brown’s companion book (available from Caliver Books) NAPOLEONIC SCENARIOS 5 : WELLINGTON’S PENINSULA VICTORIES https://www.caliverbooks.com/bookview.php?hdnfa3g72dq4nk7l61sfi0oh12&id=19193&subcatcode=D&subcatno=70
This contains some historical battles and the all important OOB (Order of Battles) needed to refight some of the big conflicts during the campaign. I think that doing “refights”, were you and your opponents have a fixed army list AND deployment at the start of the battle and then the game goes where you and you opponent take it based on your decisions and results of combat might be this mysterious “itch” you’ve not been able to scratch yet. But at least grab the primer and the General D’Armee Rulebook (you can always flog the rulebook later if you decide it’s not for you). There’s also some General D’Armee “Let’s Play” videos over on Lard Island that might give you a better idea of what these rule are like (and why do you all think that rules that form more of a “simulation” is a bad thing? Give it a try at least). Embrace the Grognard, and enjoy the “grumbles” 😀 For me playing these “refights” is the pinnicle of the hobby (ok it’s not for everyone), as I’m not into all this list building and alpha striking
to be fair I was just looking at buying the complete collection, all British, French and all of the allies for both forces in one handy dandy expensive package 😉
Had a look at General D’Armee yet, or did the first impressions make it seem a little too complex for doing BIG assed games. On Warrren’s front he’s now joined the Wargaming aristocracy (nothing to do with being a card carrying “Laird”, rather he now has a Wargaming room that allows a permanent set up (or games can be left alone between sessions), and can now get over the 2-3 hour “hump” thats a concern when you can only play down at the local club when selecting rules and the scale of the game)).
Was that the Peninsula collection from Wofun? I must admit my “head maths” seems a little off on that one as the standard infantry packs contains 86-94 flats (could do with knowing how many are command stands with the flag, or rather how many battalions 86 flats from Wofun make). The big pack states 20 sprues with 1400 individual flats (so is that flats in groups of 2 men, or a “flat” is 2 men, and counts a 2 flats?). It’s kind of hard to work out exactly what you get in that big pack. There’s 38 individual catalogue codes, but only 20 sprues? Also if building troops to fulfil an orbat, you’re going to need a higher proportion of basic infantry codes than you seem to be getting…..it’s all rather difficult to fathom out for this feeble mind of mine.
@avernos Have you looked at DBM – De Bellis Napoleonicis – I find it a perfect starting point for beginners and also you don’t need a lot of figures. ( I a no suggesting you are a beginner at all). I have played many Napoleonic games and I keep coming back to DBM.
I played DBX games years ago and they were okay, I need to have a think what I want to do really. I’ve heard that LADG has a nap variant kicking around
Well if you ever want a pdf copy let me know. The DBN is good, but the pdf is over priced for a typed document.
Happy Sunday,, love the show lads , loved the segment on rules and once again Oriskany hits its on the head….
Love the Star Wars mancave that Warren is creating. I’m not sure if all the information is canon, but the best lightsaber color breakdown I’ve found is https://screenrant.com/star-wars-lightsaber-color-meaning/. It doesn’t really go into the who wielded each color unless they were a major character, but it does explain why you don’t see many yellow blades.
I like to play the same set up multiple times. I’ll play the first level (or equivalent) of a video game until i’ve perfected it, which means that i go into the second level similutaneously being ‘on it’ and having to react to new things (rather than getting a good portion of the way through the game before i’m any good). I liked to play the same deck against the same deck in Android: Netrunner many many times, until i knew the combination inside out, or at least until i knew a deck had an irredeemable flaw, before adjusting the deck or playing a new deck and/or opposition deck. In RPGs i like to play the (randomly generated) hand i’m dealt. As and when i get back into skirmish and battle games i think i’ll do the same with armies. Arkham Horror The Card Game has a good campaign system for deck adjustment whereby at the end of each scenario the player may have earned some experience points that can then be spent on upgrading or swapping in and out cards. It severely limits the amount of adjustments that can be made to a deck to a few cards (or at least that’s my experience of the game so far).
One consideration with the simple vs. complex issue is that one person’s simple is another’s complex, by which i mean both that one person may find something (such as arithmetic) very quick and easy and another find that same something almost impossible to do let alone use, but also that one person may perceive something as being more or less worthwhile than another person in terms of what complexity, generally and/or in a specific rule, contributes to the game and to the experience.
have a fun with blue Monday ! I have to work unfortunately
Happy Sunday!
@warzan – if you’re serious about that division- or brigade-level look at Waterloo, I stand ready to help as always (from a game design perspective). We could bring @elessar2590 for historical expertise. Elessar has also played by “Battlefield Rebellion” system, so he’s familiar with hex-and-counter black powder. I feel between the two of us we could really help deliver a quality product.
I’d be more than happy to have a conversation about that. Brigade level (as in the smallest unit is a brigade) would be great for Waterloo, it would be manageable with 2 players per side and you could do it either with tokens or miniatures.
Historically putting together the army lists would be super easy and I’d be more than happy to do the leg work figuring out uniforms, commanders, stats and history for them. I might be a little strange but that sounds like a lot of fun to me.
Let me know if you want to chat about this @warzan @oriskany
Why would you want to try and do Waterloo any other way. I’ve played it using Grande Armee by Sam Mustafa and its a complete monster. Plenty of OOB’s online as well. The problem with doing Waterloo is trying to deal the entry of the Prussians and how to to stop the French players reacting to it ahead of time
Awesome, @elessar2590 . I was just following up on a conversation during the COGs weekly radio Discord show. Warren was talking about the possibility of using “standies” or “flats” (my ears perkjed up, I though COUNTERS) for Waterloo. Warren is no novice at this, he played Waterloo “Quelle-Affaire!” by Riverhorse with @dignity and Alessio. He mentioned he wanted a “grand visual impact” – a sense of awe.
I asked whether his sense of awe was for a few counters / standees / blocks gorgeously and articulately designed and printed with historical colors, etc … or MANY counters that showed the true shape and weight and disposition of the army.
He tentatively replied the latter.
So now we’re talking about relatively small counters, which means not many numbers or values, and a simple “participation game” type system. He’d played “Quelle-Affaire!” which I think is corps / division … so I just clicked down one level to brigade / regiment … taking an initial estimate of total counters on the table about 200 (Waterloo “Quelle-Affaire!” has 30-40 or so … I figured x4 or x5 for the next echelon level down plus the additional commanders, artillery batteries, etc).
I would absolutely NOT be qualified to design this game from a historical perspective. I know Waterloo and Napoleonics only to an “educated conversation” level, there’s no way I know enough to design a “Level-2” (command tactical) game on this.
This is why I brought your name up. **IF** we were to team up, (i.e., only if there is genuine long-term interest because this WOULD be a lot of work) I would envision you on-point from a history perspective (and others in the community as well) and me as game design / graphics.
Brigade level Waterloo? I think we can pull it off. I’ve played Quelle-Affaire and using the ‘flip the toke’ for damaged Brigades would cut down on bookkeeping, name the Brigades and have reference cards would be easiest.
The biggest problem is that people know how Waterloo works so they know what to do, that just means you have to add some mystery and undesired effects. For example the Wounding of the prince of Orange helped rather than harmed the allies, Uxbridge getting wounded lifted Wellington’s spirits since he despised him, French scouting of La Haye Sainte reported a full Division when there was only a damaged Battalion. There’s plenty of opportunities to make the game interesting even if you had experienced people on either side.
I’d be more than happy to help out with the project.
Today’s discussion was fascinating. Warren brought up a number of questions that I have personally pondered for a while now.
The first is effectively “do we have to many rule sets?” I think the answer is’Yes’. We have so many rule sets in so many genres that I actually think it’s hurting the chances of really good rules getting noticed. I know it’s not the business practice but I’d love to see BoW do compare and contrasts with new and existing rule sets.
Also, I’d like to see you make designers explain why we should be playing their rule sets as opposed to existing ones.
The second was “what do gamers want in rule sets?” Again it was an excellent question. The idea of increased granularity is excellent. Ben and Gerry both had an equally excellent point as to why certain generic systems can fail and it’s because the simplicity of a system takes away from the feeling of the setting. Star Wars and Warhammer and settings like them need critical hits that permanently injure characters. Star Trek and Lord of the Rings don’t. Heroes in Star Wars and Warhammer lose limbs and die burnt or bleeding. Star Trek and Lord of the Ring wounds don’t even bleed. In LotR heads come off without so much as a squirt!
The third was “what do gamers want from gaming?” I think this is where GW got it right. Their ‘3 ways to play’ gives the spectacle, the friendly and the competitive game options. If you want the realistic uneven battle that tells a story you can. You want a roughly equal game with friends you can. If you want to play in competitions you can, and in all 3 you can learn to play better from the experience.
The reason Saga kept coming up is as a generic rule set is that it’s a great rule base that you can place settings on. What it has allowed players to do is vary combat across settings. What they seemed to have realised is that a man stabbing another man with a sword doesn’t change regardless of the setting. What changes is what the army he’s part of was trained to do. Romans fought differently to Vikings because one was an army of trained soldiers, the other was a collection of competent warriors who believed fighting well got them into heaven.
Finally I think the Star Trek Away Team vs 40k Kill Team point by Warren and Ben was spot on. Very different settings that would be great to cross over. Star Trek would probably slaughter the Imperium because their combat doctrine makes sense. In Star Trek who even wins the fleet battle wins the planet. The highly manoeuvrable Star Trek ships would simply cut the imperial fleet apart (admittedly it would take forever). Once the fleet is unopposed you could, if ruthless enough, teleport the planets defenders into outer space without a fight. A race like the Romulans with cloaking would certainly be ruthless enough.
@avernos see what jumped up in my face-stream (in one of the many Napoleonics groups that I am part of) as I was watching the show: https://www.facebook.com/belloludiadvies/posts/1379966662565867
I believe that was the company you mentioned? Great to see it being used for training as well as (maybe) a gateway ruleset…
Did not know of the company before. Will check out the rules for sure!
got the same message this morning, that’s them alright showing that planning and fun is more important than rules 🙂
I’m waiting on an ancient set coming from Peter that I ordered with a view to big rank and file massed battle clashes
I love the deadpan “People love selling Star Wars Toys” 😉
In regards to the topic of game rules I like the redefining to be “depth” rather than “complexity”. In my mind the key is to consider if a given rule adds to the fun of the game and supports its design objectives. Often it seems like rules are added that are just there to add complexity for its own sake.
The other major point is that complexity/depth should always endeavor to increase player agency and choice (or establishing the questions players need to answer). If they are just adding busy work to the game then they are taking away from the game rather than adding to it.