"How about Vis Bellica?" Topic
30 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please don't call someone a Nazi unless they really are a Nazi.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Medieval Discussion Message Board Back to the Ancients Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestAncients Medieval
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleAnother week, another unit for the Amazon army!
Featured Book Review
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
basileus66 | 05 Dec 2003 4:34 a.m. PST |
I received the past week my Vis Bellica ruleset copy and I read it thouroughly -as I must to do a brief review for a Spanish magazine-. I like the overall look of the rules, although some things -above all the simultaneous movement- strike me as, err, dificult to manage in high-competitive wargames environments. However I have not play the rules yet, so I wouldn't do any criticism which would turn unfair for the ruleset. Thus, what are your experiences with the rules? Would you recommend it to a friend? Thanks in advance
|
coopman | 05 Dec 2003 6:52 a.m. PST |
I have not played them yet either, but I have read thru them a couple of times and I feel that they are a good set of rules. I want to give them a try real soon to see how they play. |
vtsaogames | 05 Dec 2003 7:32 a.m. PST |
Have not tried Vis Bellica, but here's an idea for simultaneous movement problems. It always seems the problem is about who moves that last inch. Instead of argueing about it, each player rolls a die. High roll gets that last inch. If one player has faster troops, add one to his roll. Re-roll ties until someone wins. Wish I'd thought of this back when I used si-move rules. |
Connard Sage | 05 Dec 2003 9:24 a.m. PST |
Hmmmm, simultaneous movement, in a highly competitive environment; That`ll be WRG 1st to 6th editions ancients competitions then? - the *professional* players ;-) worked then, no reason why it shouldn`t work now, and Vis Bellica aren`t written in Barker either! |
Thurlac | 05 Dec 2003 12:07 p.m. PST |
OK, Vis Bellica plays extremely well and is a good sturdy set of rules. I enjoy it very much and use it regularly. It is NOT a competition set of rules. It is a set best suited to campaign play, recreation of historical battles and general fun mucking about. I never expect to see a Vis Bellica competition. I do see people playing Vis Bellica and enjoying it and on a regular basis. It is not a shocking new discovery of rules systems and techniques but a good and sensible blending of mechanisms that mesh together well. Although I have been spoilt with the largely paper free environment of DBx, the paperwork in VB is minimal and not a serious hindrance (one sheet of paper with one line per unit). For a good fun evening's play, Vis Bellica is a GOOD game. Enjoy! (Gamers who carry micrometers in their top pockets to ensure the actual range of archery fire need not apply). |
aecurtis | 05 Dec 2003 2:39 p.m. PST |
I'm curious. How does one write a fair and balanced review of a ruleset *without* playing it? Yes, yes, I know it happens all the time. But what are the ethics of reviewing? In comparison, would one review figures without looking at them? Would one review a book without reading it? Would one review a mfilm without seeing it? And yes, yes, I know it happens all the time... Allen |
Yettie | 05 Dec 2003 3:32 p.m. PST |
Thurlac*[It is NOT a competition set of rules. It is a set best suited to campaign play, ...I never expect to see a Vis Bellica competition] Could you expand on this a bit? I have not yet had an oportunity to read/play DBX or VisB but hope to soon (on order arriving any day!!) what makes you say that these rules would not work well in a competion envirnment? I have also seen similar comments about PIQUET ARCHON, does anyone have a thought on this? Bill AKA yettie
|
John GrahamLeigh | 05 Dec 2003 4:19 p.m. PST |
Allen - I reviewed Vis Bellica without playing the rules - I said so at the start of my review. I thought they had lots of good ideas and would work pretty well, and said that as well. If I'd learned the rules thoroughly, found some clued-up opponents and played enough games to be thoroughly familiar with them, the review would have been delayed for about six months. As it was, I sent the review to the rules author before publication and he didn't have much fault to find with it. He then put it on his website. Of course, this might just have meant that I'd overlooked some horrible flaw, but I don't think so. There were some features which I perceived as drawbacks and I drew attention to those as well. Scarcely the same as reviewing books, films or figures as the time involved is equivalent to just reading a set of rules, never mind playing them. I'm about to do the same with another new set of rules, so I thought I'd get my defence in first! |
aecurtis | 05 Dec 2003 5:07 p.m. PST |
Sorry, John, but I disagree in principle. (Nothing new there!) By consuming the content of a book or film, one experiences what the author or filmmaker had to offer. But reviewing a ruleset after only a read-through cannot reflect the experience of actually applying the rules and discovering the interaction of the various mechanisms. It can only be superficial at best. Unfortunately, this has become all too common in the wargaming press, as has the practice of only saying "nice things". That does the potential consumer little good. Of course, the alternative is to bash and flame the product without ever playing it, and we've sadly seen that happen, too. The one I'm thinking of was before your watch on "Slingshot", though, so no need to be defensive! Allen |
John GrahamLeigh | 05 Dec 2003 5:27 p.m. PST |
Well, as long as one is honest about it, surely it's better to have some review than no review! Nor did my review contain "only nice things". At the least, such a review alerts readers to the existence of the rules and gives some idea of what they're like. No-one has ever "bashed and flamed" rules in Slingshot, except some WRG 7th Edition diehards attacking DBM when it first appeared. I assume you're referring to Karl Heinz Ranitszch's 1998 article "Deformed History" - that was not an attack on WAB rules, it was an attack on Jervis Johnson's philosophy as expressed in Jervis's earlier article "Informed by History". It's worth re-reading those articles (as I did recently) to remind yourself what was actually said, as opposed to what some WAB partisans think was said. The said partisans tend to forget that Jervis's original article and various counter-attacks on Karl Heinz appeared in Slingshot too! |
JJartist | 05 Dec 2003 6:14 p.m. PST |
I have to respectfully disagree with Allen on this (nothing new there either)... one may properly review a rules book as a book, and not really understand every nut and bolt of the game... playing a lot will determine whether you like the rules... reviewing in many cases just promotes the new ideas to the potential buyer. I feel the gamer reviewers job is to let the audience know what is different about the rules in question, the production quality, and functionality. But I would play the game at least once or twice to get a feel for it, otherwise it would be tacky to make sweeping generalizations about game play. As I stated elsewhere, and JohnGL repeats, timeliness is a factor, and my review of WAB will be written for Slingshot just as soon as I feel I have a complete grasp of the game, maybe in a few more years,or after I play Allen :) Of course that article will have to include a bunch of kumbayas for the apologetic OFM, and Karl Heinz, and Jervis. JeffJ
|
aecurtis | 05 Dec 2003 7:26 p.m. PST |
Well, Jeff, then I guess I'll be the sole cynic from now on who wonders, when seeing a rules "review", whether the "reviewer" ever even bothered to crack the cover, or just asked on TMP for some unknown entities to offer up opinions to parrot! And John, although I am a WAB partisan, I was one of the first to respond to that despicable diatribe, and so I'm quite familiar with what was written. It was expressly a criticism of the WAB rules, although the main complaints were with WHFB mechanisms, as the "reviewer" had never attempted to play WAB. There's no point arguing this any further; the SoA does one thing well, and that's rally around the standard. Allen |
JJartist | 05 Dec 2003 7:57 p.m. PST |
Oh C'mon there's plenty of cynicism to go around.... you are right, a review shouldn't even be attempted unless somebody is willing to make the effort, I would hope for that as well.... just BS'in. JeffJ |
(Change Name) | 05 Dec 2003 8:44 p.m. PST |
As a consumer, my main goal in reading a review is to make a determination as to whether it is worth my time, money and effort to purchase and play a set of rules. Unfortunately, learning a set of rules can involve a major investment in money, time and effort. One hates to make this investment, only to find out that the rules don't work. The same thing applies to books, music and movies. I would hate to spend money and time reading a book, based on a review, only to find out that the reviewer did not read the book. I would hate to find out that a movie reviewer did not actually watch the movie, or a music critic did not actually listen to the piece of music. By the same token, Computer Gaming Magazines, will generally require that a reviewer play a game from beginning to end. Some of the worst computer games I have purchased, were based on reviews where the reviewer never actually played the game, but game the game a glowing review anyway. I don't see much difference with miniatures games. Many game mechanisms are very subtle, and it is impossible to fully appreciate them until one has played the game at least several times. Simply reading through the rulebook is not enough. It is not unreasonable to expect that a reviewer have a basic understanding and knowlege of the subject of his rules. In effect, the reviewer is speding his money time and effort examining the rules so that I do not have to do the same. That is his job, and the responsibility he has undertaken. It is not that hard to play several games before putting pen to paper. I am assuming that any experienced gamer already has the figures. (If he does not, then he probably lacks the experience to write a meaningful review anyway.) Most rules sets come with introductory scenarios. (Terry Gore's Rules have numerous aids to get one started including an interactive demo.) It is simply a matter of pulling out ones figures and playing a game -- this should take about an evening. Then repeat it on several other occasions. At this point, the reviewer is in a position to make at least some intelligent comments concerning the rules. I submit that any review of a game where the reviewer has not actually played the game is per se fraudulent. At the very least the reviewer should disclose the fact that he has not played the game in the first sentence of his review, along with any other biases. (e.g. "I will only play DBM. I have never played WAB. I think WAB sucks because it is not DBM.") At least with a review like that the reader/consumer knows what they are getting, before spending a lot of time reading the so called "review." Unfortunately, these "reviews" tend to have an agenda. Most of the time the agenda is to bash another set of rules. A similar problem arises where a game designer who is trying to promote his rules, attempts to either write, or have a friend write the rules. In any case, any such review is suspect. Any magazine which publishes "reviews" where the reviewer has not played the game rapidly will lose credibility. Any magazine or newspaper which publishes reviews of music, movies or books where the reviewer has not heard, seen or read the materials, simply cannot be trusted. I hold the publication responsible for the quality of the reviews which appear in that publication. |
Javier Barriopedro aka DokZ | 05 Dec 2003 9:24 p.m. PST |
What? Simultaneous cannot be properly managed in "highly competitive environments"? To me, that depends on the take of the players and the place given to the "referre2 --a requisite for true competitive play, me thinks. I think that's why Vis Bellica exists. It's logical in every sense of the word... The gameplay itself tells who does what in the exact order. So the "last move" issue is a bit of a no-contender. My only critique would be to "narrow-minded" player that want to have it their way, always, and thus the game be it competitive or otherwise, swamp to boredom. But then again, from the very begining I liked Vis Bellica TOO much to be totally unbiased. |
Javier Barriopedro aka DokZ | 05 Dec 2003 9:31 p.m. PST |
Now on the "happy-happy joy-joy" reviewing... You can tell when something is forced. I believe a relaible review is a neatrual one. One that points both the "strong" and "weak" point of a particular game system. "Good" or "Bad" are categories you should quickly spot in a text and run away from like they were the plague. Why? Strong/Weak are conditions that tell you about a game froma structuralist point of view. Abstract, but as fair as can be, as you are analizing the CONCEPTS presented according to their inherent LOGIC. Good/Bad, are archetypes based on PERSONAL perceptions. And we all have our fair bit of those. A review that uses these to "weight" a game, book or whathaveyou, will be flawed for it will only appeal/work for similar minded individuals. A writer must aim to have the broadest audience possible, personal differences notwithstanding. ... All right, I go to the back of the room and see how thing unfold from here.
|
John GrahamLeigh | 06 Dec 2003 3:38 a.m. PST |
Just a couple of points. Allen - Karl Heinz's article was not a review and did not pretend to be. Slingshot did carry a review of WAB, a three-part article by Peter Hall who very evidently had played the game and liked it. Zarquon - your views look rather extreme (as usual) and "fraudulent" is a very strong word. Reviews such as mine of Vis Bellica serve a useful purpose and don't pretend to be anything they're not. Javier - well said. You've nicely expressed the aims I try for when writing a review. |
basileus66 | 06 Dec 2003 7:14 a.m. PST |
May be I should be more precise in my first post. Is not my intention to write a review in deep as I only wrote these when I played more than a couple of games. The article is actually a guide to beginners that want to intitiate themselves in the Ancients stuff. I will provide the readers with an overview of the game system of Vis Bellica but DBM, WAB, Tactica, Armati and Ancient Empires too... which I have play till exhaustion in some cases. My objective is not criticise a particular set of rules. I had very nice games using my WAB vikings, but too with my DBM Han chinese; and my Ancient Empires Trojans has refought many times the battles to defend their homeland from the proud argives. I have not played Vis Bellica... yet. And that was the reason why I asked for help in this forum. |
basileus66 | 06 Dec 2003 7:24 a.m. PST |
My comment about "high competitive environments" comes from my (unlucky) experience with some rulelawyers that I have the disgrace to play than for any criticism for Vis Bellica. After all, I have spent ten pounds from my own pocket in the ruleset... and another 25 to order the army lists after read it. So my bias is in its favour more tahn against it. And, Zarquon, I have no hidden agenda... Although I would be pretty happy if somebody would be willing enough to pay me to have one! |
brevior est vita | 06 Dec 2003 9:32 a.m. PST |
Guys, The plain fact of the matter is that there is no equivalent of Consumer Reports in the wargaming hobby - i.e. there is *no* periodical or web site run by a completely independent entity whose members offer unbiased reviews of hobby-related products and services. It would be nice to have such an entity, but we don't. Let's face facts: historical miniatures gaming is a very small hobby, with an extremely small number of people who do the vast majority of the hobby-related writing and publishing. This means that those same hardworking, extremely dedicated people end up writing the vast majority of the rules reviews. Since they are dedicated hobbyists, all of these folks quite understandably have their own personal favorite rulesets (as do we all!), it is perfectly reasonable to assume that personal biases will creep into their reviews, no matter how hard they attempt to convince themselves otherwise. This is simply human nature, nes pas? This is not to cast aspersions on the folks who do take the time to write reviews for new minaitures rulesets. As has already been pointed out, without them we would have virtually no rules reviews at all to read. However, it also means that one is well advised to take *any* rules review with a very large grain of salt, *particularly* one written by an aficionado of a competing rule set - however apparently well-intentioned. Of course, those publications that are simply "house organs" for a particular wargaming publisher or figure manufacturer fall into another category entirely, as do "reviews" written by other rules writers! Personally, the reviews I have found most useful are those (admittedly rare) which were written by amateur fans of the set being reviewed, *and* provided a great deal of informed discussion about the scales, procedures and mechanics used, *and* were balanced enough to discuss the set's perceived weaknesses, as well as its strengths. Given the complete absense of any sort of truly unbiased wargaming press, I think that this is about the best we can hope for in the forseeable future. |
brevior est vita | 06 Dec 2003 10:06 a.m. PST |
Just a brief addendum: I agree completely with the comments of several others - I think that one must actually game with a rule set, preferably several times, before one can give any sort of honest assessment of how it plays on the tabletop - which, after all, is what the reader is usually interested in learning about. Personally, when I am reading a rules review and come across a statement to the effect that the reviewer has never actually gamed with the rule set in question, I instantly lose any interest in reading further. |
(Change Name) | 06 Dec 2003 10:23 a.m. PST |
I don't think it is at all extreme to expect a reviewer to be familiar with the subject of his review. However, for grins and giggles, I will pose the question to the editor of our local newspaper (who is a friend of mine). I will ask him how he would react to receiving a review of a movie from one of his reporters, only to find out that the reporter had not actually seen the movie. I think I already know what his answer will be. Generally, in the world of professional journalism, a reviewer will lose his job for such conduct. It is largely a question of fairness. It involves fairness to the author of the rules. Most of these guys spend a lot of time and money to produce and market a set of rules. I doubt very many authors have made a lot of money writing rules. (Rick Priestly may be the one notable exception.) The last thing they need is some lout who has not even taken the time to play the rules, bashing their rules. It is also a question of fairness to the readers. Readers are trying to make an informed decision about whether to purchase and play a set of rules. They need to hear both the good and the bad from someone who knows what they are writing about. An unfairly favorable review causes the gamer to waste time and money on a game which is not worth the investment. An unfairly negative review causes the gamer to miss an opportunity to play a good game and possibly to continue playing with a less than satisfactory set of rules. Finally, it reflects on the quality of the publication. If one cannot rely on the quality of the reviews, how can one rely on the validity of anything else which appears in the publication. When the publication contains an historical article, how can the reader be assured that the author has not made up facts out of whole cloth because doing the research would take too much time and effort. But, thanks, John, for confirming that the Slingshot has no journalistic integrity. |
John GrahamLeigh | 06 Dec 2003 11:14 a.m. PST |
Complete nonsense from Zarquon, as usual - including his customary spiteful little swipe at Slingshot. Allow me to quote from my recent review of Vis Bellica: "First, a caveat. I have not used these rules, except for a solo run-through to which they are not well suited. This review is based on a careful reading and general impressions." I then gave a generally favourable review while drawing attention to what I perceived as the rules' weak points. The purpose of such a review is to inform readers that the rules exist and their general principles. Since then I've encouraged VB players to submit game reports, several of which have been published. Naturally I'd prefer to publish a review from someone who is thoroughly familiar with how the game actually plays (as with Peter Hall and WAB), but that takes time, to the extent of months at least - scarcely the same as simply reading a book or watching a film. Zarquon's analogy is simply ridiculous. Zarquon's assertion that "Slingshot has no journalistic integrity" is libellous as well as being untrue. It's a great pity that some small-minded people take advantage of pseudonymity to spread misinformation in this way. "Grins and giggles" sums up his attitude quite well, though perhaps "sneers and sniggers" would be even better. |
Javier Barriopedro aka DokZ | 06 Dec 2003 12:22 p.m. PST |
Then basileus, the case is all but solved... Competitive play has NO place for ruleslawyers. These are controlled by a referee. That way ruling is impartial and exact. No player can claim "more chips to his side" this way. Yet, if these guys are so "rules-obssessed" then, as I pointed out in my first intervention, the LOGICAL manner Vis Bellica is presented dictates WHAT happens WHEN in the length of a turn. You cannot argue with that for YOUR ACTIONS DETERMINE ALL THE OUTCOMES, in the excat order YOU dictated them. HA! Take that, grumps! =Þ Obviously, if they can't handle simple, direct rules and want to have every advantage, natural or fabricated, these guys are not fit for competitive play at all. If they must ALWAYS win, then that's where solo play comes into the picture. That way their cheating or tweaking/twisting/reinterpreting of the rules will stay private and cause no further shame on others. I dislike ruleslawyers. Even when faced by one, reason and logic will shut their traps most of the time... And if they are absolutely incorregible, I just concede and keep on playing with strategies designed to push them to their very limits --i.e.: force their knowledge of the rules and their interpretation of them to the max, so it just gets sillier and sillier with evry intervention they have. If there a sizable public, I become even more of a "masochist". Sure, it stops being wargaming and becomes pure headcracking, but it's fun to see them try harder and harder to hide their natures... Fun in a sick, twisted sort of way. Then, of course, these are the guys that either lighten up and enjoy playing the game and actually think about strategy and tactics to win a game, or become "outcasts" with very few people willing to play with them. I, on the other hand, have a good amount of opponents and friends I enjoy many hours of gaming with. "By their actions you shall know them..."
Cheers! |
mawaliuk | 08 Dec 2003 3:56 a.m. PST |
Hi Anyway, back to the game! I really enjoy Vis Bellica. Troop types have multiple classifications, so you can really represent what your troops are like - if they are rubbish but have great armour, they they can have it, etc. There are no super troops, either. Units take damage as the game progresses, meaning that your unit of Elite super knights will be looking decidedly less super after a couple of volleys of arrows and a melee or 2! You need tactics and a handy reserve in this game! John |
basileus66 | 08 Dec 2003 4:03 a.m. PST |
Thanks, Javier. After near twenty years of gaming I have grow so tired of rulelawyers that I trend to give up the game and concede defeat... even if I am winning. Usually this behaviour upset them a lot. But I left the game with a feeling of sadness as the ass$%&/" has spoiled all the fun. |
Javier Barriopedro aka DokZ | 08 Dec 2003 11:25 p.m. PST |
No, don't concede the game, just to their "point", and keep moving. Don't let them with a game unfinished, just make them pay for their "perks" and "playinh styles"... No one is easier to dupe than a ruleslawyer. He will try to be as "literal" as possible, and still manage to interpret the rules to his advantage... You certainly can use that against him. "Hmmm... Lessee. A good 1/4 of your base is visible. Why, of course you are in cover!" [Ruleslawyer grins] "So... I canīt shoot directly at you. [Grins get wider] "Yet, as long as you stay there, you have no chance to shoot back. The obstacle block you line of sight, whereas I can fire inderectly at the last place your unit was seen... That is the woods' edge and your 1/4 of a unit will be receiveing all that indirect fire... Wow, and I thought it was going to be easy to kill your unit!" =D You can get very creative in what ways you corner them and love it as the crowd starts laughing and hissing every time a new "interpretation" is made. Just laugh at it and keep going... This will break them. =) "No one vill takez ze fun outta my gamez. Sick und tvisted, I yam." DoktorZinieztro. |
Yettie | 09 Dec 2003 7:08 p.m. PST |
I had a question that I thought was on topic that seems to have been lost in the "havn't played can't say it" bru-haha so I'd thought I'd repost it and see if anyone had some thoughts Repost******************************************* Thurlac*[It is NOT a competition set of rules. It is a set best suited to campaign play, ...I never expect to see a Vis Bellica competition] Could you expand on this a bit? I have not yet had an oportunity to read/play DBX or VisB but hope to soon (on order arriving any day!!) what makes you say that these rules would not work well in a competion envirnment? I have also seen similar comments about PIQUET ARCHON, does anyone have a thought on this? Bill AKA yettie
|
Riothamus | 15 Jan 2023 11:12 a.m. PST |
Slingshot is a via unbiased wargame journal as an addendum to this old post. Also to avoid rule lawyers and aid competition just simply use these rules with a grid set up a la TTS |
Marcus Brutus | 17 Jan 2023 2:29 p.m. PST |
The basic point that a reviewer should know the rules well before writing a review is one that I agree with. Honestly, we've been playing Sword and Spear for the last year or so. That includes about 30+ games. I am still trying to grasp how the rules actually play. There is no way I could write a fair review of S&S yet. I don't believe a read through and a couple of solo games qualifies one to write a review. |
|