Celtic Tiger | 03 Dec 2010 1:00 p.m. PST |
Inspired by another thread where the OP asked which were the most attractive rule set that you own "even if you find the mechanics leave a lot to be desired", here's an alternative. I own several of the rule sets mentioned in that thread and yes, they are mighty priddy, but when it comes to a game they don't really do it for me. Anyone else been seduced by the glitz and glamour but found that it wasn't worth the price of the dinner? |
Farstar | 03 Dec 2010 1:04 p.m. PST |
|
Bob in Edmonton | 03 Dec 2010 1:04 p.m. PST |
Napoleon by Matthew Fletcher, published by Foundry. Lovely book; rules really, really weren't to my taste (or entirely comprehensible). |
Historicalgamer | 03 Dec 2010 1:06 p.m. PST |
I'll give you a hint
.most people refer to them by initials that begin with "F". |
aecurtis | 03 Dec 2010 1:06 p.m. PST |
I dodged the one that would have fallen into that category, because the publisher made sample pages available; it was obvious the rules were a no-go. Thank you, Foundry! WAB 2.0 was a disappointment, content-wise, considering the price. Too much room taken up by unecessary artwork and page-eating design; too many errors crept in during the layout process (that were not present in the corrdinated draft, I am informed). Some think it's pretty; I found it lacking. I wasn't seduced by the glitz; I felt obligated to buy it. Allen |
raylev3 | 03 Dec 2010 1:16 p.m. PST |
Napoleon by Foundry
.should have never seen the light of day. |
Garand | 03 Dec 2010 1:20 p.m. PST |
Heh. I would diddo Farstar's comment, but I sold my copy on Ebay long ago
Damon. |
JimSelzer | 03 Dec 2010 1:25 p.m. PST |
|
TodCreasey | 03 Dec 2010 1:38 p.m. PST |
Napoleon, but I still think the lovely book was worth it. |
Sysiphus | 03 Dec 2010 2:20 p.m. PST |
Yes, sucked into the vortex of FOG. Luckily I've since escaped. |
highlandcatfrog | 03 Dec 2010 2:23 p.m. PST |
Well, I've rid myself of all the ones that fell in the "attractive, but rubbish" category, so I don't currently own any. Were I to offer my opinion of the most glaring example I'm familiar with it would be a set that begins with the letter F. I'll let y'all guess which one I mean. |
Ken Portner | 03 Dec 2010 2:31 p.m. PST |
If by "F" you're referring to FOG, I'd beg to disagree. There is difference between rules that are rubbish and those that aren't to your taste. When I think of rubbish, I think of incomprehensible, inconsistent, and error filled rules. FOG is none of those things. |
quidveritas | 03 Dec 2010 3:03 p.m. PST |
Physical Product and Rubbish are not mutually exclusive. There are rules I own that completely miss key elements of the period the purport to recreate or represent. I guess you could call these 'rubbish' simply because I won't play that rules set. Then there is the rules set that has any number of inconsistencies and 'holes'. These are a fight waiting to happen and frankly, as an attorney, I don't like to spend my hobby time litigating or worse yet, listening to others litigate. This is a hobby and if I'm not having a good time, I'm gone. So, where gaming with certain individuals, this kind of rules set is 'rubbish' -- with others, perhaps an acceptable rules set. Finally there is the Ultra complicated, ultra verbose rules set that takes a PhD (relating to that rules set) to master. These may be mighty fine rules but they just collect dust -- so, these are rubbish. Seems we need to define rubbish a bit better. As far as 'glitzy' is this limited to hard bound, color pictures, or 'what'? |
highlandcatfrog | 03 Dec 2010 3:24 p.m. PST |
There is difference between rules that are rubbish and those that aren't to your taste. Agreed. And I wasn't necessarily referring to FoG. As quidveritas states, "rubbish" can be pretty subjective. |
richarDISNEY | 03 Dec 2010 4:08 p.m. PST |
D&D 4th ed. Anima Tatictics West Wind's Vampire Wars
|
Big Red | 03 Dec 2010 4:42 p.m. PST |
|
Connard Sage | 03 Dec 2010 4:58 p.m. PST |
I shelled out for Napoleon. The first WF product I've ever bought. It's not even that pretty, many of the pics are
samey and dull. I won't be making the same mistake again. |
Dave Knight | 03 Dec 2010 5:04 p.m. PST |
I have several rubbish sets of rules but I didn't buy them for the glitz, eye candy in rules does nothing for me. I recognise that I am very much in the minority as pages of pretty pictures seems to sell a lot of rules. |
Sundance | 03 Dec 2010 7:15 p.m. PST |
While I have FoG, I don't know as I consider them rubbish – although I'll probably never play them. I bought them because I was curious about them, having heard so much. My game group plays WRG 6th, and I'm perfectly happy with those. I don't really find that the shiny pictures do anything to enhance rules as they don't necessarily help clarify the rules themselves. |
Oldenbarnevelt | 03 Dec 2010 7:21 p.m. PST |
William Stewart: FOG um um um I'm going to tell Dave Sullivan you said that. |
HobbyGuy | 03 Dec 2010 8:10 p.m. PST |
Flames of
. flames of
. something with flames. |
Desert Rat | 04 Dec 2010 12:04 a.m. PST |
FOG Ancients. Yeah, it loos pretty, but in my experience, the games bore the bejesus out of me. |
Rommel Rocks | 04 Dec 2010 2:50 a.m. PST |
Firestorm:Armada Game looked good. Intial breeze through of rules at store looked good. Bought a fleet. Found the worst one, I think. Rules are poorly put together. Friendly company though. Hope 2nd edition is better. My fleet hasn't seen the light of day in 9 months. |
platypus01au | 04 Dec 2010 3:51 a.m. PST |
Trafalgar. Everything except the rules are fantastic. History, painting tips, OOBs. But the rules suck. Are inconsistent and badly written. The most important factor in the set (the to hit value) is referred to only twice in the rules. Once in an example diagram, the other on the 7th paragraph on p18, in normal font. It isn't in the QRS. Someone once said on TMP that it was ironic the set was called "Trafalgar", because it would be virtually impossible to play the battle using the set. FOG isn't rubbish. Just dull. IMO. JohnG |
Steve | 04 Dec 2010 6:51 a.m. PST |
|
Parzival | 04 Dec 2010 10:24 a.m. PST |
Chronopia. (Actually, I sold that
) But in all honesty, it wasn't the rules that were rubbish. They seemed okay, even original, though I never played the game. What was rubbish was all the fluff in the book— horribly written, horribly edited, with the most basic grammar mistakes. It read like something churned out by a fifteen-year-old death metal fan with a blood fetish who struggled to maintain a "D+" average in his English class. |
Wargamer Blue | 04 Dec 2010 11:03 p.m. PST |
Warhammer Ancient Battles 2 |
Flat Beer and Cold Pizza | 04 Dec 2010 11:37 p.m. PST |
"FOG isn't rubbish. Just dull. IMO." I feel the same way about Warhammer ECW: the rules are workable, just very vapid. I really can't place my finger upon why these rules are so tasteless
they just are. |
Whatisitgood4atwork | 06 Dec 2010 2:58 a.m. PST |
At the risk of being tarred and feathered, Charles Grant's 'Napoleonic Wargaming'. It is still one of my favourites. I love the chatty, informative style, and the pictures are great – even if they do not measure up to today's eye-candy. But the rules are pretty basic by today's standards. The rules themselves could fit into a very small booklet. The rest is fluff. I love the book for the fluff, not the rules. |
Kraussian | 06 Dec 2010 10:13 p.m. PST |
I may be in the minority, but "Black Powder". The rules just don't feel right to me, and in fact feels more like some Games Workshop product (Warhammer, Warhammer 40K) with a light veneer of horse & musket warfare. The book itself is beautiful, a hardcover with glossy full-color pages and lots of eye candy. But it was by far the most disappointing rules purchase I've ever made in my life. |
The Beast Rampant | 07 Dec 2010 1:30 p.m. PST |
"West Wind's Vampire Wars" Is that a different edition than mine? That's the only rules set I have ever owned that I actually considered putting Garbage Pail Kids stickers over most all the illustrations, so I wouldn't have to look at them. |
dejvid | 10 Dec 2010 8:12 a.m. PST |
I would nominate FOG because the eye candy contradicts the rules. It is quite clear that the figures are not from real wargames and they often take up formations that would be illegal in a FOG game. |
Mooseworks8 | 12 Dec 2010 10:49 a.m. PST |
|
EvilGinger | 22 Dec 2010 1:19 p.m. PST |
in order of loathing GW Scifi & Fantasy rules lovely background horrible rules WRG 7th & subsequent editions Flames of War, particularly Blitzkrieg |