The Loose Association of Wargamers

Jeremy wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2017 7:34 pm Subs, both are great sets.

Fire and Fury wrote a regimental set that weren’t as great as the originals.

Yeah, I read that on some fora or another.

I've now got to the stage where I don't want a War and Peace sized list of factors/training levels/ grading/weapon systems or anything that states that 'these base sizes are set in stone and cannot be changed under any circumstances.' I try and make my wargaming life as simple as possible.

Which reminds me, last year I bought a copy of One Hour Wargames. read it but have yet to try it out.

In a nutshell, I have a hell of a lot of chaps in differing sizes, rules, terrain, et al but for some reason, other projects take up most of my time and I average one game a year if that!

MickS

There's now a 2nd Edition of the Original Brigade rules as well...

That means I'm a Luddite in two different fields -tech and wargaming. Didn't know about that.

We're tweaking the club's 7YW rules.
We want to get them smoothed out for our upcoming Imagi-Nations campaign:

http://herkybird.tynesidewargames.co.uk/

I hate "wargames rules", I hate the football hooligan type attitude of some "wargamers" to different sets of rules, "my set is better than your set, you are a worse human being for using that set yadda yadda yadda". We have all witnessed or experienced examples of that sort of behaviour, eh? My attitude was encapsulated by a wargamer I met for the first time, when I contacted a couple of local wargamers here in Suffolk. This guy, after a clammy handshake, said as his opening gambit "Oh, and what system do you use?" No, hello, kiss me arse or whatever, oh no pal, I am not going to be judged by you on that limited criteria, especially as I do not espouse any particular set of wargames rules anyway, so my response was "Well, I pretty much make it up as I go along." It was most amusing to watch his complete inability to process that response, and I don't think he spoke to me for the rest of the day, and I beat him in the subsequent game which was nice.

But it made me think about the issue for a while afterwards. Basically I am very lazy, so if somebody else wants to run/umpire a game and do the skull sweating, I will quite happily oblige and just get on with thinking about my tactics strategies etc without the worry of how the rules work, providing they let me do what I want to do on the table. I feel absolutely no compunction to LEARN a particular set of rules, wtf is that all about? If somebody goes to the trouble of providing a nice shiny book of rules then I will refer to it, but I am not at school anymore, and I don't do homework. If the game bores me, then I have no need to repeat the experience.

So for me, simplicity is the key. A set of wargames rules should be a toolkit, and a basic one at that. I don't need somebody else's perspective on history, and as I once said to NDL, most of us have our own knowledge and thoughts on the periods we play soldiers in, we all graft that knowledge onto our games, so really all we need to know are the basics, what dice score do I need to kill a soldier, how far can my toys move, and will they run away. Everything else is pretty superflous isn't it?

Far more important than any set of wargames rules, are the people you play Toy Soldiers with, get that right and the rules, whatever they may be, (apart from boring) assume their correct position in the grand scheme of things, and not to get mushy, but you guys are the right group of people, so I'm sorted.

We need a "drop the mic" emoticon.

Oh lord no... Rules are for buying not trying........ :o

I blush when i think how many rulessets I have bought over the years most of which i have read copiously but never played in any way shape or form. It's a branch of the hobby I enjoy very much. I find as i get more mature (avoiding the word old here) I am attracted more to easy play games rather than complicated simulations. In particular the games of sam mustafa provide a lot of enjoyment if not historical reproduction........ Most of the rulesets which claim to be accurate simulations of real war leave me with a headache after about page 6. I assume thats an age thing.

I think Tim has hit the nail on the head; the people you play with are more important than the rules used.

Wg Cdr Luddite wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2017 7:25 pm I think Tim has hit the nail on the head; the people you play with are more important than the rules used.

Agreed, it’s something I’ve always said. You can have a great game with good mates and shit rules. You can never have a great game with good rules and shit opponents

Tim Hall wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2017 10:50 am
A set of wargames rules should be a toolkit, and a basic one at that. I don't need somebody else's perspective on history, and as I once said to NDL, most of us have our own knowledge and thoughts on the periods we play soldiers in, we all graft that knowledge onto our games, so really all we need to know are the basics, what dice score do I need to kill a soldier, how far can my toys move, and will they run away. Everything else is pretty superflous isn't it?

Sensible suggestions and good answer Tim, the only problem comes if somebody cannot do what they would like/expect to be able to do based on their version of history and when they can't do it get upset and spend the rest of the game being grumpy....

Which is of course where the importance of Wingco's comment applies