"Lasalle wins best Historical Miniatures Game Rules of 2010" Topic

(Lipstick on a…well, you know..)

Playboy centerfold? Runway Model?

Hi

I am happy for Sam.

It really doesn't matter that I won't be playing the rules…I avoid nappy like the plague. Because of the GAMERS like some of the negative stuff above!

My only quibble is with the magazines. Sam is proud of his internationalism, but the mags list him as "American" which seems limiting.

Congratulations.

Rocky

Well done Sam, a great set of rules.

Steve.

I really enjoy the rules. Nice to see them get an award.

Somebody has to win and someone has to lose. Lasalle won plain and simple. It's off-topic and somewhat rude to trash the rules out of hand given the topic and then make a lot of insinuations about the awards process (and by extention HMGS-E) and then back off of them when you get called on it.

If you want to trash the rules start a "Lasalle won the Charles Roberts Award even though it stinks thread". It really isn't appropriate here as other have pointed out.

Oh and to wander back on topic, congratulations to Sam Mustafa for winning this year.

Dave

With all due respect but can't a person disagree with something/someone and not get a ton of bricks dropped on him?

Emperador Carlos is just speaking his mind and i thought in the U.S. you have that right to disagree with something/someone.

Well, first off, there is no such thing as "freedom of speech" on a private forum.

Second, the point of the topic was to congratulate Sam. I purposely did not make statements about the value of the rules as a game, nor did I make comparisons with other rules. I simply offered a congratulations. That's all.

Certainly anyone can speak their mind about any topic, within the parameters established by our esteemed editor. That's why some of us spoke our minds in response to Emperador Carlos' "interesting" statements. Works both ways, right?

Voted for LaSalle; though I love the spirit of BP, it's not my can of cola; Sam is the class act he is described as above and I will purchase Bluecher without hesitation.

Congrats!

Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)

I find it funny to see on this forum of an international membership how often individuals claim their right to free speech. Unless we intend on demanding rights for all based on a concensus by all, this right does not exist here. As we have seen, the Editor's laws exist here, no matter what they are, with our only "right" being the ability to join or not join in the discussion.
In most polite conversation, when a topic or discussion askes for an opinion, one is expected to be able to voice their thoughts openly. However, when not asked (directly or indirectly) voicing such opinions is being self indulgent in ones own self worth to others and is considered overbearing and in some circles ignorant.

So for those wishing to provide an unsolicited opinion, wasn't the dozens of comparison threads here on TMP and other forums enough to give you your voice?

Now could we not hear the voices of congratulations for an achievement by a fellow gamer?

As for stating a vote may not be legitamate or proper after the award has been given, in this case will affect nothing. If we are looking for a better system for this "contest" I would suggest we apply ourselves to improving the next vote. I'm sure if anyone feels strongly about the fairness of the system and is willing to put the so called "money were your mouth is" into play, that the BOD would love your assistance in improving the system.

I do admit to a "drive by the accident" type of facination with what gets put up on some of these threads, being passionate is one thing, but that can come very close to insanity sometimes.

Popcorn please…..

Doc

congratulations Sam, Great rules and good to play.

I'm deployed to Iraq at the moment trying to ensure insurgents don't tear this country apart. I'd love to have been at Historicon enjoying my hobby (note the word hobby) but alas it'll have to wait. What a fuss about a simple ballot for a fun event! Thanks for the rules Sam, looking forward to playing them when I get home.

Tha

That's why some of us spoke our minds in response to Emperador Carlos' "interesting" statements. Works both ways, right?

I fail to see why disagreeing with someone disagreeing in any way infringes on his freedom of speech.
Not all opinions are equally valid. Some are downright dumb, and pointing that out does not violate anyone's civil rights.
People are ALWAYS telling me on TMP that I don't know what I am talking about. That does not violate any of my civil rights. (It just shows how stupid they are! ) Nor does my telling him to bite me violate his.
How can we have arguments and discussions about serious wargaming issues if we all agree? AND, disagree with the disagreer?

Discussion of the vote aside, I disagree with Docmagus' post on not presenting our opinion in this thread.

So because the OP didn't ask for an opinion, no one is allowed to disagree with the award?

Posting a thread on a message board then trying to set the parameters to 'positive comments only' is ridiculous.

It's especially ignorant to state that people should 'go find another thread'. This thread is perfectly adequate, and it's the right, nay, DUTY of those who feel the award should've gone elsewhere to say so.

If we didn't the thread would convey the impression that everyone in the entire community loves the game and absolutely agrees.

That's not just censorship, that's propagandism of the highest order.

EC why didn't you just start your own thread?

Congratulations Sam. I've only been able to have one quick go at Lasalle but liked them a lot.

mad monkey 1 why does EC have to start his own thread?

Captain Gideon

Because it would be good manners? Would that be asking too much perhaps?

…DUTY of those who feel the award should've gone elsewhere to say so.

Thanks for letting me know mad monkey 1.

Captain Gideon

I agree that EC should be able to express his opinion (the thread isn't titled "Congratulations to Sam ,etc. so I don't see dissent as bad form).

But then he lapses into vague, unsupported allegations that the vote was rigged, and when he's called on it takes the "oh I'm not accusing anyone of anything" route.

If you don't have the courage to back up your accusations then you're a trouble making troll, plain and simple.

I'll agree that the question of decorum is open to debate (in fact, if I had kept in mind this was the Nappy board, also known as the DH board, I wouldn't have commented on it) , but his allegations and innuendo regarding the voting process and subsequent back-pedalling after getting called on it is a tad beyond the pale even on the Napoleonic board.

Dave

First, congratulations to Sam. Hopefully, Black Powder and the other nominations consider that a near-equal honor within the wargaming community.

Granted that this thread would not be as entertaining without some alternative opinions expressed, and entertainment is a big reason to drop in on TMP regularly.

However, I agree with Bede and DFD above that insinuations or allegations of corruption directed at an individual on a public forum goes beyond bad manners, decorum or mean-spiritedness.

Well done Sam!
Rafa
Go Spain!

Way to go Sam. Now hurry up and write a good set of ACW rules.

Congratulations again Sam! I was pleased to be there in person when you found out. I think you have a knack for fixing a lot of what other rules get wrong and providing what players want. It is truly your best rule set yet and I can't wait for the next.

True, it is just a trophy and a pat on the back but nobody can take away the pride you must feel knowing that the community appreciates your hard work. The tin foil hat wearing, recently stifled troll can never take that way.

He is a slave to DUTY. He has no choice, really.

He agreed with Kanye West too, when he was so mean to Taylor Swift. Did a fist bump backstage.

I love when people make a virtue out of Bad Manners. "At least I am not being politically correct!"

Congrats Sam. Well done for a set of rules that you put a lot of hard work into.

<<<This thread is perfectly adequate, and it's the right, nay, DUTY of those who feel the award should've gone elsewhere to say so. >>>

So, hypothetically, if I were called upon to give a speech at my sister's wedding, I could praise her choice of husband, but it would be my right, nay my DUTY to state to the gathered throng that she should have married some other bloke who I happened to be best mates with?

Can anyone grasp the ham-fisted allegory there?

CONGRATULATIONS SAM!!

A very handsome set of rules.

Chuck

Dont know anything about Black Powder, but we have certaintly enjoyed Lasalle…very fine game…congrats Sam!

Emperador Carlos,

Good for you for sticking to your guns! Of course you have the right to your opinion. If one wasn't allowed to dissent from the mainstream, it wouldn't be much of a DISCUSSION board…

If indeed the main contendor to Lasalle was Black Powder, then frankly anyone expecting a British product to win was being somewhat naive.

But please keep on questioning, ignore the sheep bleating, your opinion is just as valid.

For my 2 cents, Wargames rules are by their very nature subjective in their appeal, so anyone using the results of this or any other competition to decide on which ruleset to use may end up disappointed, as I was with Lasalle. But at least I based my initial decision on a magazine article

Having now played both, I much prefer BP to Lasalle, but I can't say one is better than the other in any objective sense of merit, since both are well written and thought provoking. Its just that for my background and circumstances BP has a particular appeal.

Kind Regards,

Sparker

Carlos wrote:

"I just think there was a bias… in the judging"

"I think that the award may have been arbitrarily decided by the upper echelon of the leadership, possibly with some monetary incentives…"

Sparker wrote:

"Carlos… please keep on questioning, ignore the sheep bleating, your opinion is just as valid."

I'm sorry, but an "opinion" that the (non-existent) judges were bribed and that the award process was rigged, simply isn't "valid," because in order for something to be valid, it has to be true. Not only is there no truth in that accusation, but there is no reason to make it.

One does, of course, have the right to hold an opinion that has no basis in fact. And as others have noted, other people have the right to think poorly of such a person.

The "sheep bleating" is in fact the democratic process that you are allegedly defending. That is also, incidentally, the way the award was awarded: people voted, and the nominees with the most votes, won.

If you honestly believe that Carlos' opinion is "valid," and that the award process was corrupted by bribery, then even the most rudimentary form of logic demands some sort of evidence.

More to the point: if you were accused of dishonesty and corruption, I suspect that you'd not be so quick to defend the "validity" of an anonymous critic and accuser hiding behind a fake name on the internet, adjusting his story every few minutes.

When one ruleset is an unwanted lamb from the Games Workshop stable, referring to proponents of another as bleating sheep is wonderfully ironic.

Allen

Sam,

My congratulations also. It's a fun set of rules, well-produced and worthy of the recognition it has received.

Rick

Having gone through the process several times with the HG Wells miniatures award, I would liek to say something about the 'bias' comment. (In 1984/85 I came inrunner up to a set of rules called The Sword and the Flame)

%he same things were said about those awards back then. Some large companies would nominate their own rules and castings, then conduct an oscar style campaign, to convince voting members to vote for them.

So your complaints fall on deaf ears. Write something yourself to become elgible to vote if it is a guild. Or if not join whatever organization is responsible for voting.

If he campaigned for his rules, that only makes sense. Is he supposed to say do not vote for me. Are strong advocates for his rules supposed to do the same. Of course not. Other companies and designers will all push for their own rules. It only makes sense.

Though Sam and I do not always see eye to eye on topics, I am exteremly proud to give him my Congrats.

For the record, Rudy, I had no role in the nominating process for HMGS or Origins. In both cases, I was notified by email that I had been nominated. It was news to me, when Pete Panzeri contacted me on 11 June.

I have been nominated three times (2003, 2006, and 2010), and never submitted any sort of sample or application, until after being notified of my nomination.

And I've never asked anybody to vote for my game.

Once again: there is no "guild" or "organization" that does the voting. It was a vote by the people who attended Historicon. They voted when they registered.

For the record:

1) The nominees are notified – they don't put themselves forward.

2) There's no "campaign" to persuade anybody to vote for you.

3) There are no "judges" to bribe, and the idea that somebody would bribe vote-counters is just too absurd for the realm of sanity.

4) There is no guild, organization, conspiracy, or cabal. Just people voting at a convention.

Well done Sam.

Congratulations, Sam.

Lasalle has got me to do my first Napoleonic army.

I can't comment on Black Powder, but the game mechanics, production values, freedom from unnecessary FoWish chrome, forum support (including additional army lists) and overall presentation of Lasalle are top notch.

Dear Sam:

Congratulations. In a field rich with new, splashy rules for the period, it must be gratifying. I've enjoyed playing them, even when I got my handed to me.

Incidentally, it is clear you are confused about how the winners are chosen. The Trilateral Comissions' Worldwide Zinc Pricing Cabal signals the membership by setting a coded zinc price (the price is for a specific alloy – one alloy is for the HMGS awards, another for the latest episode of "Big brother" – you get the idea). The Illuminati then encrypt this price and have it put on the name badges using subliminal images. This ensures that the process is free while also ensuring the correct entry wins.

Regards,

Mark "Extra Crispy" Severin
ScaleCreep.com
FlagshipGames.com
DeepFriedHappyMice.com

Not knowing the merits of either case, nor who is eligible to vote, nor how many voted, nor the results for that matter, sounds like a vote by centuries to me :)

PS I don't think the winner would've won if he didn't deserve it.

Wait a minute! I thought that Empire was the greatest ruleset EVER,and the rest monopoly,or backgammon,or something.I'm confused now.I'm going to lie down.

I would like to thank John Holly for inadevertantly starting one of the more entertaining threads in a while.
And he thought he was just being nice to a friend!

Mark, you forgot the Freemasons!
((Or maybe, he didn't! Bwahahaha!))

Congrats!!! The rules are professionally done and display an obvious love of the hobby. We need more folks like you.

BTW, for future reference, I don't care what those senators say. I'm the best vote money can buy! Even better than Freemasons. =)

Cheers, Sam!

Dear Allen,

For the record, if by 'unwanted lamb' you are referring to Black Powder, then it is very much 'wanted', at least by me and the handful of wargamers I've played it with in a small city in Australia. Which I suspect means it has many more fans in the US and UK…possibly even dozens!

More seriously, I don't use the term, 'bleating sheep', which with hindsight I realise may not have been helpful, to characterize the proponent of a particular set of rules I don't happen to find useful. They are of course as entitled to their opinion as I am to mine. As I hope I made clear in my original contribution to this discussion, I feel that the 'usefulness' or otherwise of rules is largely subjective anyway.

I was reffering to those people who made personal attacks on our dissenter, and the way he was brought up, because of his opinions. His opinions are open to attack, not his personality. This is a wonderful forum, and has given me years of pleasure, but there is far too much personal rancour rather than disputing of opinion – IMHO!

Kind Regards,

Sparker

Verweile Doch,

Clearly you are justly proud of your product and its recognition. But I do feel you have overreacted a little to a small amount of criticism on an overwhelmingly supportive topic – 2 or 3 critical posts out of 2 pages?

I feel that your initial comment that criticism is usually in the vein that your rules are too light and 'fun', is somewhat ingenuous, as I for one have compared your rules in the past on this very forum as being overly complex compared with BP, and you must have known that as you put up a very spirited defence, albeit under a previous name…

Your very criticism of the somewhat trenchant methods our friend EC uses, if correct, surely limit the damage he can do to you as an anonymous poster on an internet forum…

And as for granting me the right to my opinion, however erroneous, well, Gee! thanks!

Kind Regards,

Sparker

I am so glad I also am a member of WD3

I prefer rules that have the losers of melee test for morale…..always seems like a good idea to me, but seems to have been forgotten by producers of red headed stepchildren in power armour. Sam seemed to think so too.

Lasalle has definately raised the bar in terms of rules presentation. Somehow, I never thought I would say that rules formatting would be a uniquely acheived thing, but I have never seen a ruleset ever acheive this.

Was black powder runner up? …..Somehow I doubt it.

" was reffering to those people who made personal attacks on our dissenter, and the way he was brought up, because of his opinions. His opinions are open to attack, not his personality. This is a wonderful forum, and has given me years of pleasure, but there is far too much personal rancour rather than disputing of opinion – IMHO!"

Sparker,

I do believe the problem is not that he is a dissenter or his opinions, but the fact he is making baseless and petty accusations. Obviously he doesn't like the rules, but to make what appear to be baseless claims that he can't back up….well frankly I think reaction is justified.

Ian Buttridge

Congrats Sam, nice set of rules

congratz Sam,

It was the picture of my Russian Grenadiers that got you over the line I bet…/wink