"The Future: Spend More on Rulebooks, Less on Miniatures" Topic

I was perusing the thread on "Field of Glory" and it made me curious, so I went to the publisher's website to check it out, and had two thoughts simultaneously:

1. Those armies look sort of small and underwhelming.

2. Those rulebooks are expensive! Fifty bucks for the main book, and 25 per codex?!

Then it dawned on me that this has been the trend in miniatures gaming for the past decade, certainly throughout the 2000s: armies are getting smaller, and thus less expensive. And rulebooks are getting bigger and more expensive.

Rulebooks aren't getting "bigger," though, because they have more *content.* Quite the contrary; gamers are very clear that they don't want detail-packed complicated games anymore. The rules are bigger and more expensive primarily because they're packed with fluff: lots of pretty color pictures, the occasional irrelevant sidebar with a simulated excerpt from some novel or movie script, and just plenty of "eye-candy."

This is all well and good, and I find pretty pictures as inspiring as the next gamer does. But for some reason it only just now occurred to me:

Are we basically becoming boardgamers? Spending less on figures, wanting smaller and smaller miniatures armies, and spending the money instead on printed material done by somebody else?

Our hobby has always been an aesthetic one: the way things look is important. But it has also always been a sort of DIY art-show: the average Joe's paint-job, while not perfect or brilliant, was fun and an important part of the experience for him and his buddies. We didn't care too much about the rulebook, which might as well have been typed on white paper; what mattered was getting together with our friends and setting up the hundreds of figures we'd painted and the terrain we'd made.

Have we evolved now to a hobby where somebody else does the art for us? Pre-painted figures, or figures shipped off to the other side of the world to be painted for us…? Smaller and smaller armies so that we don't have to "waste" time painting, and can get right to the game….? And the bulk of our money spent on rulebooks, full of professionally-done artwork and computer graphics…?

Interesting post :-)

There is already another thread on the cost of FoG so I won't repeat other than to say compared to my overall wargaming spend the cost of these rules is not material.

As for size of armies I've not found that in the games I play (for the last 10+ years that has been mainly 15mm DBM) that the armies used have got any smaller -if anything maybe a touch larger – and I've certainly kept buying lead at an ever increasing rate. Also starting out with FoG so far the armies I've worked out are at least as large as mt DBM ones, some are larger but I've not found one yet that is smaller.

So from my individual perspective I would say that in my gaming world we are not tending to become boardgamers.

I don't think that I've ever spent more on rules than figures for a period. On the other hand, while I enjoy using figures I have painted, I am also happy to use figures painted by others that I have bought (mostly painted, I should say, by members of my club).

As it happens though, between having less ready cash, and enjoying painting at the moment, I am going against the trend you suggest and 'wasting' more time painting than before. I consider the painting time enjoyable and treat it as part of the 'value for money' of buying the figures in the first place.

Assuming I buy the FoG rules, my spend on minis will still be far far larger than that on rules. Although some of the FoG armies I've seen in pics aren't large, I'd imagine that you can specify the points value for an army, so could assemble a very big army; at least that is what I'll be doing!

Simon

I'm much, much more of a miniature gamer thatn I ever was a boardgamer. I got into the hobby because I loved the aesthetic of serried ranks of well-painted toy soldiers on the tabletop.

Even if my dreams of fielding Gilder-like tables of 25mm Nappys are a long way off fruition (which has more to do with lack of opponents, table space and the lack of deadline pressures that comes from enjoying a regular gaming group, rather than from a lack of time). I remain much more of a painter than a gamer. Painting has always been a big part of the hobby for me.

Money spent on figures FAR outweigh rules in my gaming budget. Always has, always will.

I do not see that mostly through the three East convention, Cold Wars, Historicon, and Fall In! What I do see over the past 36 years is many more scales and periods. Especially in the last five or six. 6mm, 10mm, 20mm (mostly plastic) and 40mm have all become very popular (see the yahoo groups for each) over the past several years.

As to rules some of the most hyped and talked about expensive rules do not make it. Napoleon's Battles II, for example. On the other hand Warhammer Ancient Series starting with the second module of lists started a trend towards more "eye candy"

Also lets face it if I want detailed OOB on the 4th Underground Mess Kit Repair Company I can find it on the net. Old school rules use to include pages and pages of detailed analysis of the rules and designer notes and orders of battle, battle summaries and so forth. Not needed so much now.

I think this is just another example of how the web has changed our hobby.

I do think the hobby is 3 or 4 tiered with Historical interest, Gamers, and a few others being the core of the hobby.

VR
James Mattes

It's a thoughtful question, and you'll get different answers from different people. For me, the question comes down to: how much material do I need?

Starting out with DBA, I would have loved a rulebook in around the 70-100 page mark, full of examples and expanatory diagrams, rather than the super-dense 13 pages of rules we actually got. OTOH, wargamers seem to have survived ;)

At the opposite end of the spectrum, the Battlefield Evolution rulebook felt horribly padded out – hardback, too many pictures and useless extras (like how to make model building out of sheet plaster), and we STILL didn't get the unit stats. It was such a simple game, I would have been happy with a 30-page pamphlet. With stats…

IMHO, Warhammer Historical do their rulebooks really well – the rulebooks for Warhammer and Warmaster Ancients have short introductions to painting, terrain-making tips, just enough colour pictures to whet the appetite and give the most basic idea of colour schemes, and lots of good clear diagrams. They manage to make the subject accessible to someone starting to game the period without overloading those just looking for a new ruleset.

I think we're getting into an era when traditional tabletop wargames are becoming friendlier to a much wider audience, those who lack the time, patience, skill or even just inclination, to paint and assemble huge armies and build vast gaming tables. I don't think that's a bad thing, and I think a lot of people will still be drawn to play "big army" games – I've seen pictures on the internet of Star Wars Imperial armies of hundreds of Wizards CMG stormtrooper figures and half a dozen AT-ATs.

And for gamers – well, even though I'd still paint minis and make terrain if wargaming vanished tomorrow (probably have to get the kids into model railways and dollshouses…), I like the idea that I can get into a new period with a relatively small expenditure (of time and money). It means I'm more likely to try something new, which means more of my "pocket money" goes into gaming.

everything in life is connected to an ever swinging pendulum, it swings one way but eventually will swing back the other. Simple fact is we humans are linked to fashion in one form to another and things change, war gaming styles are no different.

It is funny to see and hard to understand but we humans always crave for what we do not yet have and once we have it we get bored again…basically chasing what we don't have til we get it then we move on…

Shane

"Have we evolved now to a hobby where somebody else does the art for us? Pre-painted figures, or figures shipped off to the other side of the world to be painted for us…? Smaller and smaller armies so that we don't have to "waste" time painting, and can get right to the game….? And the bulk of our money spent on rulebooks, full of professionally-done artwork and computer graphics…?"

Not I. (Which is why some army projects have taken literally years to reach fruition.) I think some of us have become held under the sway of 'instant gratification' culture.

Very interesting opining Sam.

Fred
(Not a board gamer)

I used to play boardgames quite a bit, about 20 – 25 years ago when SPI and AH still mattered. It was the look of miniatures and the flexibility of rules that attracted me to a nobler cause. But until recently I have never had sufficient time or space to paint or even play. I know I'm not alone in finding that raising children, pursuing graduate education and then a career leave little time for hobbies.

At times I have found expensive glossy books an inspiration. An obvious example is Tactica, which I bought way back when. In an absurd effort, I cut out paper counters and fought Macedonians vs. Persians on the bedroom floor. This kind of experience helped me realize how thin some rulesets can be. It also really defeated the point of painting pretty armies. Please, no anti-Tactica blather. There's room room in the hobby for style over substance, and those rules contained some interesting ideas. And too much detail can make rules really drag.

For many years I would paint at most a couple of units intended for some ruleset or another and give up for lack of time. Lately I've managed to find a little more time and also space (no more storing half painted minis on top of the refrigerator!). Over the weekend I finally finished the first of several painting projects, ACW armies in 6mm based for HFandG (other periods and scales are half painted, awaiting energy and inspiration on my part). Here the cost ratio is as it should be. Not too much spent on minis (Baccus is good bang for the buck) and zippo for the rules. I still buy rulebooks, mainly to get good ideas. But I don't want to get tied down by basing and scale. I'd rather paint and base first, and then write my own rules. For example, I'm sure I'll get frustrated with HFandG real fast and have to improvise. Such is the beauty of our hobby, the flexibility…

My vote:

1. Armies should look good for the period and scale, and budget. For me it's medium-sized and slightly whelming.

2. Thirty bucks is about my limit for books. For that I expect a lot. I don't care if it's in color or even on paper (a pdf will do), it just better be complete (what a novelty!) and have web support. Glitz and gloss is inspirational, but with all the pics available on the web nowadays, they are superfluous. The little quotes here and there are useless and annoying except when particularly amusing. Look to TFL for the perfect balance in all regards. And please leave out the crappy artwork. Unless you're the Perfect Captain, hand drawn illustrations (I won't give examples to spare feelings) are best kept out of books.

Actually, I expect my rules expenditure to go down. I have found a couple that I like, work well, and for which it is possible to attract players.

I am actually close to completion on a project as well, which is a novelty for me.

I don't spend anywhere near as much on rules as on figs, even for my own personal consumption. I hate reading rulebooks for the most part so I find a set I can deal with and stick to them.

Figs on the other hand I need by the ton as skirmish gaming doesn't appeal to me personally.

However I have noticed a trend towards more skirmish gaming in the hobby. "Periods" like the old west, VSF, pulp, French and Indian War have become the mainstays of the hobby over the past couple of years. This is what I see people playing, producing and wanting to be painted. I don't know why this is exactly.

I do like some skirmish games and I find them really useful for doing games at the history club I run. But I prefer big games with lots of figs. It just seems more interesting.

I would tend to agree that there has been, overall, a trend to simplfy rules. This, I believe, is the result of a better understanding of how simulation actually works. Many designers and players have come to the realization that only the most important aspects (those having the most impact) need be simulated.

In other words, is it really necessary to write an order on a tiny piece of paper, tuck it under a miniature messenger's arm, and send him riding off to deliver it? Or, can this process simply be included in a PIP roll?

So, while some games are simply warmed over 70's and 80's fare, others are innovative and fresh and their trend toward simplicity should be confused with lack of sophistication.

As to the expense, I can hardly complain. I just ordered some software development books from a couple of used book dealers for old programming languages. These books, published in the late 80's and early 90's made me realize how much of an increase we've seen in book prices over the last ten or fifteen years. Fifty dollars is about what I expect to pay for an avarage computer book today. It's a limited market, and they don't sell very many of any particular title so the cost is quite high. Rule books are the same. The smaller the market, th more they are going to cost.

For years, I can remember people saying that we needed better marketing, colorful books, lots of examples and eye candy to ensure that new people would be attracted tot he hobby. Now those books are here and the cost is pretty stiff…but that is what we asked for.

As for FOG, in particular, I'm hopefull that, being published by Osprey, there will be illustrations and pictures drawn for their considerable resources. I don't mind pretty pictures and fifty bucks is not all that expensive when you look at other types of esoteric books in the book store.

Now the rules are another question altogether. I've preordered all the books scheduled to be published (on Amazon at a significant discount) based only on the reputation of Osprey and RBS. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that the wait is worth it.

It might be interesting to construct a "Laffer Curve", with inflation adjusted price of a rule book on one axis, versus number of figures on the other.
When I was heavily into Ancients, I bought any and all rules that came out, and barely glanced at most of them. I bought all the supplements and list books, too.

It might also be instructive to compare inflation adjusted rules prices. I have no idea what I paid for WRG 5th ed back when it came out, but it might be interested to adjust the price and now compare it to the price of FoG.

If someone had told me in 1985 that in 2007 I would pay $50 USD for a hardcover rulebook for WW2, AND another $35 USD just for the "Army Lists" (Flames of War, and "Afrika"), I would have told them they were nuts. That would have been the price of a 1000 point solid 25mm EHC army, with elephants. Today, that would buy two units.

My point, which I am wandering all over the place to make, is that sometimes Old Timers like me still remember paying $.25 USD for a Minifigs 25mm infantry figures, and were shocked to see Heritage selling a blister of 6 for $1.98. I still think that way sometimes, particularly when comparing 15mm prices, or 28mm plastic prices.

Sam, plenty of people enjoy playing games, but don't like modelling and painting (or perhaps, can't do it, for whatever reason). I don't see what's to be gained from sneering at them, personally.

It may say something relative to Sam's topic, by the way, that I cannot begin to remember what I paid for rules back then. Something tells me $5, but I am no way certain.

That should have read "…their trend toward simplicity should NOT be confused with…"

Sorry, the "delete" button isn't availble to me at…err…well where I am right now…if you know what mean…

Wow, I was just about to start a thread postulating the exact opposite, i.e., will everyone be buying more figures than rules in the future! My premise is that what could possibly be in any new set of rules that most people don't already have? In WW2 alone there are probably 100+ sets of rules for every figure scale, unit scale, activation and combat preference, etc…, so what could possibly be coming out that would make you want to buy a new set of rules or change over from what you already have? I'm fortunate to be in a large group that does 20+ periods, but over the last two years I've seen few new rulebooks purchased, but a lot more figs.

I will NEVER (again) buy a glitzy gaming book. A silly waste of time and dough. The "eye candy" should be your own pieces, not a bunch of stupid piccies; the last time I bought a rules book with color piccies was a GW Warhammer edition, long since parted with….

The future is spending more for both.

The people I know who contract painting services are just as aware of the visual impact of miniatures gaming as I am. For me, painting figures is an aspect of the I hobby I enjoy. For others, not so much.

Are those that don't paint their own stuff somehow lesser gamers than others? I don't think so. Before you start pining away for "the good ol' days", think about the quantity, quality, and availability of gaming products today.

Ten years ago, the paint for hire cottage industry didn't exist. We pretty much painted our own minis for found a local person in the club who would work on the barter system. If the off-shore painters had existed when I started the hobby, I wonder if I would have developed figure painting as a hobby.

Sam, the debate over money for rules vs minis is not a new one. I even attended seminars on the subject in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

At issue was the debate over endless supplements and rules revision vs a stand alone set of rules with only scenario books being published later.

I , being old school, have always went the stand alone route with little costs for players in the rules. I felt that it was an advantage for the players who could check out the rules without investing an arm and a leg OR just liked to collect numerous sets of different rules.

This is one reason why my rules were always a lower profile than the higher priced 'EMPIRE 3 or 4' back in the 1980s. Even when other companies published my rules, a high priced glossy set of rules were not the result.

Mistake? back then no, but today you need the gloss and fluff.

end part 1

I've certainly seen a trend toward more gamers actually wanting color rules – they may want a benchmark for painting figures, or, more likely for me, a decent diagram explaining a point of the rules or deployment maps for scenarios. I'm very happy that rules developers are providing this kind of visual assistance.

But, as for spending more on rules and less on models – I concur with vtsaogames; the future is spending more for both. I just plunked down for about 250 Foundry Swiss, I've been painting up some Scots for the last year and a half. I spend a lot of time painting models, and certainly more money on it than I ought to, I admit.

Part 2:

So many new players today are no longer willing to do their own research. They want everything spoon fed.

I could even see SYW, ACW or napoleonic rules in the near future containing specific units to build and uniforms in the rules for painting purposes. In the Fow style, that would be a sad commentary. "…You cannot build Prussian 1813-15 or Spanish armies because their supplements have not come out yet!"

[The people I know who contract painting services are just as aware of the visual impact of miniatures gaming as I am.]

An interesting point. So you're suggesting that the growth of painting services is because gamers are MORE concerned with aesthetics than they were in the past?

It's still seems, though, that the average wargame today involves fewer figures than it did, say, ten or twenty years ago. A lot fewer.

Are gamers painting a lot less? Or has the arts/crafts aspect of the hobby declined relative to the other aspects (collecting/gaming)?

part 3:

Asad thing about aglossy set of rules is that they tend to give the designer instant credability. This is regardless of their background or LACK of it in the military or history research field. Hey if it is pretty, then the rules mechanics must be good. Why else would they spend the money to publish them?

"It's still seems, though, that the average wargame today involves fewer figures than it did, say, ten or twenty years ago. A lot fewer."

I'd be interested to know on what you base this opinion – so far I don't think anyone in this thread has agreed with it but I assume you are basing it on something.

"It's still seems, though, that the average wargame today involves fewer figures than it did, say, ten or twenty years ago. A lot fewer."

The table groans beneath the weight of my minis! I had to reinforce the floor. :) Simon

[I'd be interested to know on what you base this opinion]

Popular games @ 1990:

Empire (thousands of figures)

Fire & Fury and Napoleon's Battles (hundreds of figures)

Tactica (huge, prefigured armies of hundreds of figures)

Was DBA a sort of turning point? Didn't that come out right around 1990?

Many of the most popular games today are points-based, with rather small recommended competition armies fighting on 4X6 tables. My FOW German "army" had about a dozen vehicles and a dozen other stands. I know lots of guys who have little bands of figures for "Mordheim" or "Lord of the Rings," but not big armies for Warhammer. Skirmish gaming seems to be all the rage in WW2 now. Everybody's crazy for Pulp, or Gladiators, or Pirates, or other things that require only a couple dozen figures.

Interesting topic, Sam. I have been gaming for nearly 30 years now, and have played many, many rule sets, particularly in the ancient/medieval periods. I simply to not see any correlation at all, either direct or inverse, between the "quality" of the rules and the "glossiness" of the package.

I have seen relatively expensive, well-packaged booklets that contained well-designed rules and interesting mechanics (including a Napoleonics set entitled Grande Armée), and I have seen inexpensive, amateur booklets that contained well-designed rules and interesting mechanics. I have also seen a large number of bland, uninteresting rule sets on both ends of the production spectrum, and everything in between. So while high production values certainly do not guarantee a good gaming experience, they also definitely do not preclude it.

The 15mm armies I have been gaming with have also remained pretty consistent in size throughout the years, always in the range of 150-300 figures per side, depending on the army represented. So I personally haven't experienced any correlation between "glossier" rule sets and smaller armies, either. In fact, the rule set I have played that required the largest armies was Tactica, which was also one of the earliest ancients rule sets to feature (and be criticized for) high production values.

While I guess I understand the nostalgia for "low gloss" rule sets with an amateur feel (along with nostalgia for old automobiles, etc.), it appears, at least to me, that the rules themselves are ultimately what "sells" a game. Do glossy packaging and high production values help explain the popularity of Warhammer Ancient Battles? Sure. But people wouldn't continue playing and enjoying them if they didn't also like the rules themselves. So while more rule sets, like Field of Glory, do appear to be utilizing professional layout and design (and this is a very good thing for the hobby, IMHO), it is the quality of the rules themselves that will ultimately determine whether they continue to be popular over an extended period of time.

Cheers,
Scott

>>It might also be instructive to compare inflation adjusted rules prices. I have no idea what I paid for WRG 5th ed back when it came out, but it might be interested to adjust the price and now compare it to the price of FoG.

I did this for WRG 7th army lists. A book that cost £6.00 GBP GBP in 1990 is worth about £10.00 GBP GBP in modern 2007 cash. It was a rough estimate not an accurate calculation.

The graying of the hobby, perhaps? Older gamers tend to have more disposable income, so want rules with higher production values. Also, more disposable income combined with increased "life commitments" may be the cause for an increase in the use of painting services. This also means that time for each game decreases as well, so simple games that can be completed in a single "pub" visit seem to be in demand.

2. Those rulebooks are expensive! Fifty bucks for the main book,>/q>

Quite

link

Or $46.50 USD

Now I know that you can't control UK prices and M&R is a stand alone set. But…

A couple of thoughts.

Yes, I am pretty certain that most games involve less figures than was once the case. I'd attribute this to several reasons:

1) Figures, individually, are more expensive than they used to be. I've been painting some Artizan "Thrilling Tales" figures this week which are close to $4 USD apiece. Of course, I can buy cheaper figures, in many scales, if I choose. Here I am paying for top-of-the-line personality figures.

2) Figures are much nicer in every way than they used to be. There's a lot of detail and character in those $4 USD Artizan figures. I'm certainly working harder to make them look good than I would have on the figures I bought and painted in 1987. I don't see the vast armies of 15mms, apparently painted in a desperate weekend (and mounted on bits of cornflake boxes) that I used to spot at conventions.

3) Skirmish gaming has become much more popular, for a number of reasons. Projects are more manageable in scope, time and (perhaps)cost. Most importantly, I believe, skirmish games are meant to be fun. Of course, all recreational activities are meant to be fun, but many wargames have failed this basic test in the past: many of us associate the 'no fun' factor with tedious games on groaning tables, fought with tax-code facsimile rules against people who thought the event was a test of masculinity-via-accounting skills.

4) For a long time I was an advocate of content-over-style production values, preferring a $5 USD set of rules over the same thing with colour photos for four times the price. However, I think that train has long gone, and anyway, you can't get a mimeograph machine for love or money, so purple pages that smell weird (yet bizarrely hallucinogenic) aren't an option.

5) However, larger format and better production values are more useful if they are used to make the rules clearer – with lots of examples and understandable language – than simply to pile on extraneous fluff. A font size that us old geezers can read in a badly lit game room is welcome, as well.

6) I don't think we are becoming boardgamers. Rather the opposite. Standards of the aesthetic aspects of our hobby – figures, terrain and rules – have increased all round. The distinction between miniataures gamers and boardgamers was always that we were the group of unkempt, badly dressed men with beat up cars that actually cared about appearnaces in one aspect of our lives.

["The people I know who contract painting services are just as aware of the visual impact of miniatures gaming as I am.]

An interesting point. So you're suggesting that the growth of painting services is because gamers are MORE concerned with aesthetics than they were in the past?"

I would refer you to:

huzzahm10.blogspot.com

this game was staged at Millennium X in November by Ed Youngstrom, Paul Bishop, and myself. Of the three, I was the one who exclusively paints my own figures. Of the 2000 miniatures my contribution was just above 250. That means that those guys, who contracted for painting, provided the bluk of the troops and almost all of the terrain (I only provide a few trees).

BTW, I don't understand how you drew the conclusion you did for the statement quoted. All I said is that it my experience that peolpe who contract painting services are are no LESS concerned with aesthetics that I am.

To expand on that, though, I've attended every Millennium convention for ten years. I don't see any difference between the size of the games over the last decade. I attended Cold Wars about five or six years ago and the size of the games and the table aesthetics were about the same.

Could it be that some people see the past through rose colored glasses? Have we forgotten the formless fishing sinkers that passed for figures and rules printed on a Selectric typwriter, mimeographed, and stapled? How about the endless tables and four hour turns? How 'bout CRTs that took a scientific calculator and a math degree to resolve. Ye, lets' go back to that!

[Now I know that you can't control UK prices and M&R is a stand alone set. But…]

Tell me about it. I could have done the game a lot cheaper if I didn't feel that it had to have full-color inserts, a points-based army-builder system, and all the other various gadgets an do-dads that are expected from rulebooks nowadays. Mind you, I *like* the finished product, but of course it's going to cost more.

[Could it be that some people see the past through rose colored glasses? Have we forgotten the formless fishing sinkers that passed for figures and rules printed on a Selectric typwriter, mimeographed, and stapled? How about the endless tables and four hour turns? How 'bout CRTs that took a scientific calculator and a math degree to resolve. Ye, lets' go back to that!]

Is anybody really suggesting that? I was wondering if:

1. We have shifted the emphasis of our time, money, and interest away from figures and into the rulebooks.

2. We have less interest in the DIY aspects of the hobby now than we did years ago, preferring to out-source these things we once did for pleasure, but which now seem like a chore that gets between us and playing the game.

If I'm the only person who feels this way, then fine. But that's just the vibe I've been getting lately.

There was a poll on TMP recently that suggested that relatively few players are moving to games with fewer figures:

TMP link

It might have been a more useful survey if it had also asked how many players were shifting to games requiring more figures!

Simon

Sam, I have been painting miniatures since 1974, so take my perspective with a grain of salt.
I LIKE to paint. I like to make terrain, but not as much. I am not thrilled with learning a new set of rules with new concepts. (It took me several tries to figure out Patriots and Loyalists, fo one thing.)

Back in The Day, we (I) expected a rules set to have pages and pages of charts, so that I could "accurately" represent the superior iron used in the horseshoes of British Hussars versus French, or account for the superiority of American pilot training over Japanese because we would mass produce them with veterans …. Yadda yadda yadda, you know the drill.
I don't think that that describes a "superior" rules set in these days.
I accepted a WRG Ancients rulebook that needed a mandatory "Interpretaion Seminar" the night before the tournament started. Not any more.

Today, I would not even consider a rules set like WRG's Ancients, or even their skirmish "Fire and Steel", based on graphics alone, despite the enjoyment they have given me. Why? Because they did not make the effort to "pretty them up", so they must have been done on the cheap. Redoubt's "Before the Gates of Troy" (or whatever they call it) would also be a very hard sell.

So, even though I love to paint, I still look at those dirt cheap 21st Century tanks at WalMart and wish they were 15mm instead of 1/144.

I still haven't addressed your main point about armies shrinking, though. Can you refer me to a page showing a FoG army? I still have my WRG armies as standards. I still need at least 24 hoplites before a "unit" looks right, and 150 figures is probably the smallest "army" that looks right to me, too. The main selling point about DBA is exactly what turns me off to it. I like the spectacle, more than the game.

I've raised this pint in other threads about the cost of rules.

The price of a good set of rules is what it might cost me to go and watch a football match or rugby game.

Let's say a wargame to the rules will take about as long as the game.

Next time I go to the stadium I'll have to pay again, but the next time I wargame, I've already got the rules.

OK, I'm more choosy about which rules I buy these days rather than buy on spec but eversince "Fire and Fury" I've appreciated well laid out rules with adequate diagrams. The production values do matter to me.

The cost of rules doesn't bother me so much as the cost of having to replace them every couple of years when the "new edition" comes out.

I do not do that.

Yup.

That's the equivalent of the football club changing the strip each season so you have to get the kids the latest one!

I attend 12+ conventions per year. I still see massive armies deployed on many battle tables. This is true in WW2, naps, and ACW. Rules that use smaller armies are not that popular in the regions that i visit.

In regard to ancients DBM massive armies are still played but the smaller DBA armies are growing. The flip side of small DBA armies is the fact that players are still painting the same number of castings but used in a lot more armies per owner.

John,

Here is a sample Carthaginian army list gleaned from the FOG public discussion forum, so there should be no potential problems with non-disclosure agreements:

Hannibal (Inspired Commander)
Hasdrubal (Troop Commander)
Mago (Troop Commander)

1 x 4 bases of Gallic cavalry: Cavalry, Superior, Undrilled, Armoured, Light Spear, Swordsmen *12 cavalry figures*

1 x 4 bases of Gallic cavalry: Cavalry, Superior, Undrilled, Protected, Light Spear, Swordsmen *12 cavalry figures*

1 x 4 bases of Spanish cavalry: Cavalry, Superior, Undrilled, Protected, Light Spear, Swordsmen *12 cavalry figures*

2 x 4 bases of Numidian cavalry: Light Horse, Average, Undrilled, Unprotected, Javelins, Light Spear *8 cavalry figures*

2 x 8 bases of African Spearmen: HF, Average, Drilled, Protected, Offensive Spearmen *64 infantry figures*

2 x 8 bases of Gallic warriors: HF (or MF), Average, Undrilled, Protected, Impact Foot, Swordsmen [Probably better as HF] *64 (or 48) infantry figures*

2 x 6 bases of Spanish scutarii: MF, Average, Undrilled, Protected, Impact Foot, Swordsmen *36 infantry figures*

1 x 6 bases of Numidian foot: LF, Average, Undrilled, Unprotected, Javelins, Light Spear *12 infantry figures*

1 x 6 bases of Balearic slingers: LF, Superior, Undrilled, Unprotected, Sling **12 infantry figures*

1 x 2 bases of Elephants: Elephants, Average, Undrilled *2 models*

So a "typical" FOG Carthaginian army would include 3 command stands, 44 cavalry figures, 172-188 infantry figures, and 2 elephants. While not an enormous tabletop army, it certainly seems to fit well within your "acceptable" range. ;-)

Cheers,
Scott

Armies shrinking to smaller and smaller sizes? Not on my wargame table:

altefritz.blogspot.com

I've gone in the opposite direction with 1:10 ratio castings to figures resulting in 60 figure battalions of infantry and cavalry. The rules that I use, Batailles de l'Ancien Regime (or "BAR") cost $30-35 and have moderate production values with a color cover. The rules are easy to learn and simple to play. I also game with my own rules that fit on one side of an 8.5" by 11" sheet of paper and I give these away to people at my convention games.

Sam, your two recent sets of rules have dinky little units (I define "dinky" as anything less than 20 figures) which are not my cup of tea, so I'll probably never play them. If the units were a little larger, then I'd be interested.

Nevertheless, I bought your rules because they look pretty and I'm interested in the periods (SYW and Napoleonics) and like to see how other rules designers approach the hobby. I buy a lot of rules sets with the expectation that I will never play them – they are a sort of reference library of game ideas.

I generally like to think that I'm not sensitive to price points when it comes to rules acquisitions, but probably anything over $50 USD gives me pause before I willingly plunk down my money to make the purchase. I think that $20 USD to $30 USD is the sweet spot for rules.

I haven't noticed I'm paying any more for rules. I don't buy many sets and have only bought one expensive set "Revolution and Empire' which was £35.00 GBP I sold it within a year for £30.00 GBP 15 20 years ago I was paying about £4-£6 now thats about £6.00 GBP – £10.00 GBP so the same in real terms and ahve bough rules I'm extremely happy with for less than £10.00 GBP

Although I love the spectacle of big battles after 5 years of painting slog I've come to realise I don't want to spend hours and hours more painting and if I could find somebody who could match my style on AB Naps I'd probably buy painted figures and paint very little more myself.

As a result I've given up one newish project to concentrate only on Naps in the New Year and have looked for other periods which require far less time input to get playing. That's a hard call for me as I haven't enjoyed skirmish games – they dont' seem epic enough nor have I found enjoyable enough rules. I wish skirmish games or something like HOTT had an appeal to me but it just doesn't.

The Wings of War pre-paints has made WW1 air combat possible for me and if other plastic pre-paints of similar reasonable quality and price came on the market I could see myself becoming a gamer far more than the 'painter' I am now.

My 2 cents:

Fewer figures can be explained by many reasons;: the increasing cost of figures, i recently re-read my Wargames illustrated printed in the early 90's and figures were roughly twice less expensive than today. I think that the size of your gaming room (if you can afford it) is important too. I don't know outside France, but i'm living in Paris and can be considered fortunate as i own my own flat, which is 39 square meters, quite big for today's standards. No way to refight Waterloo or Fontenoy here. I can only consider buying big battalions now, as i bought an old farm in Brittany with a big room devoted to wargaming only now (i'm 41)
Finally there are many more rules now focusing on skirmishes than earlier. 10 years ago it was quite difficult to find 28mm WWII figures, you were even considered a loony if you wanted to play with this scale (but i must aknowledge that there are lot of prejudices among French wargamers,and i speak with this pespective, so maybe is it different in the U.S/U.K)
As for glossy and expensive rules, i asked a hobby shop owner, and he told me that most young recruits are coming from Warhammer/Warmaster and the likes.there used to all those shiny books, with supplements. Considering the old WRG or Newbury rulebooks, i'm not sure that they would give the youngsters the appetite for historical gaming. I have many rules i find wonderful, drums along the mohawk or the sword and the flames to name a few, but i must admit that they are not "sexy", i bought them because i saw a FIW game with a wonderful table and TSATF were recommanded by a good friend. Last week, when i gave a sight to the siege supplement, and its beautiful pictures, for Warhammer historical, i bought it immediatly (i already have a castle and the figures)

Re the above posts, how many elements in a typical FoG infantry unit? I've recently started to prefer 6 plus element units; 24 figures looks like a formation!

Simon

Well, Scott, it looks like MY Carthaginian list.
I assume they are "WRG based"?

Lets look at one company, one game over the last twenty years. Games Workshop Warhammer 40 000.

1987; Rouge Trader, skirmish game with one rulebook
1992; 2nd ED, bigger games with more rulebooks
1998; 3rd ED, simpler rules allow larger games
2004; 4th Ed, minor revision some use Epic figs for huge games
2007; Apocalypse, huge rulebook for large battles

With 40K clearly the trend is more rulebooks and larger battles.

"2. We have less interest in the DIY aspects of the hobby now than we did years ago, preferring to out-source these things we once did for pleasure, but which now seem like a chore that gets between us and playing the game."

The implicit assumption in this statement is that gamers of yore painted figures and fashioned terrain because they wanted to. I would offer that many people painted their own stuff because they had to.

If the services and products that are available today had been available ten or fifteen years ago, would we even be having this conversation.

But to go back you original question about trading availble hobby budget dollars from figures to rule books. I just don't see it for my part. I by a lot of rule books, many of which don't get played, becasue I find rules and historical view points they represent interesting. So, discounting the rules left unplayed, I spend far, far, more on the figures than the rules.

I'l buy and play FoG, for instance. I'll soend about eighty bucks for the rules and a supplement when it's all said an done. How much will I spend on figures for the game? Given that it's designed for a 4x6 table, and estimating based on the size of DBM 15mm armies, and using my latest purchase of six DBA armies (approx. equal to two small DBM armies) from GFI, I say that I'm going to spend a little over two to three times as much for each matched pair of armies.

Now mind you, I paint my own. For those that contract out or buy painted figures the cost will be much, much higher. Likewise, 28mm will cost a far sight more.

So when you concider the fraction of the cost of the entire game that FoG represents, in spite of the pretty pictures and glossy covers, is actually quite small. Add to that the cost of figures and I don't think that people are paying a higher proportion of the budget for rules than they did before.

I do agree, however, that there is an upsurge in interest and support of skirmish and "just plain fun games" of late. Pulp games have taken off as have alternatives to 40K and WHFB. Many of these emphasize the low figure count required to attract neophytes and the kids whose pocket money won't support a GW habit. These games attract me and other "old School" gamers as a pleasant diversion. But they certainly don't replace our big Napoleonic, SYW, Colonial, Ancients, or other historical interests.

Ultimately, I think that our perceptions can be deceiving. In my opinion it's sort of analogous to the cost of gasoline in that we perceive the price, at $3.00 USD a gallon outrageously expensive. However in reality, given inflation and other factors, gas is a cheap as it's ever been.

Besides, wargaming as fantic hobbies go, is cheap compared to modle railroading, sailing or golf!