Reply To: Is it time for some more critical analysis of rule sets

[warzanKeymaster 31125xp 3]

interesting topic and one close to my heart these days, as towards the end of last year I was in deep conversations with @lloyd about this very issue and what possibilities are there to enable a narrowing of main focus (as I have a hunch the hobby butterfly effect where we are having to flutter from one thing to the next is detrimental to the hobby at large) so over the next few years I’m hoping we will see some core pillar games establish.

A couple of things about rules though that I haven’t seen discussed yet is

1 the ‘character’ of them and the company behind them.

With the stuff that’s going on I haven’t had the chance to delve into SPQR yet. We have some let’s plays though that should be running out. But the thing in general about Warlord rules is they have a lot in common with the character of the company (or people behind it).

Warlord are very much of the school of ‘pushing toy soldiers around’, they are a toy soldiers company and the rules are very much geared towards a casual push them around the table with mates approach. Meanwhile they continue to create toy soldiers to satisfy the collectors gene.

Bolt action as a rule set struggles to stand up against its peers such as Chain of Command and Battlegroup, but it’s success is not just down to marketing $$. Most hobbyists like to buy into a hobby ecosystem. One where they have choice so they can explore their passions and have a walled garden so they know where the limits are (and can opt to jump the wall or not)

So in warlords case inconsistency or quirkiness in the rules doesn’t strike me as much out of character. The key will be if they are fun to play and is the model colectibility aspect well worked out. And they have some tough competition out there these days like footsore who ‘get’ the hobby ecosystem idea.

2 rules for our type of games have an interesting paradox generally speaking. The tighter they are the more difficult they become for average Joe to ‘get in to’.

Unless you remove a ton of on table actions you find that tight rule sets quickly start to balloon in volume or become difficult to present the easy way in for a new gamer.

And in the above case it once again falls on the collectibility of the models to some degree to drive and retain interest.

Obviously there are exceptions to the above and many folk in this thread will be outliers but on the whole I would say it holds water.

Again I haven’t seen the unboxing @blinky465 has mentioned but having spent a lot of time with @avernos I can imagine lol

Perhaps that one should have been opened by @dignity but I know this week he was filming on a new game that is quite left of field from what we are used to so he had his hands full.

So ultimately it comes down to what is the main success factor for a rule set. How do we say it has hit its mark? Is it well done if it’s historically and or simulation accurate? Is it well done if it’s technically tight with little room for player interpretation? Or is it well done if it’s fun? Or is it well done if it gels the eco system it’s there to support?

Not all the above are mutually exclusive but all come at cost (either capital or complexity)

So ultimately I have some sympathy for companies in our industry. Many are toy soldier companies first and foremost and are trying to sell and support an ecosystem so the equation is a bit bigger than the rule set on it’s own. 🙂