"I would never use these rules because......" Topic

Is there anything that you find on first reading a set of wargame rules that makes you think: No, no way I would ever use these?

Trying to avoid bad spelling, grammar, use of language etc but things actually buried deep in the rule mechanisms themselves.

I have seen some fairly vociferous comments about points systems or lack there of, +ve factors for everything German or lack there of, Igo Ugo turns, randomised initiative, premeasurement or not, +1 for British firing in Line, range guessing, variable dice types, saving throws…and so on, and on…..

For me it is Casualty removal, I don't want it and see no benefit from it. I like roster systems that keep my expensive and painstakingly painted figures on the table and gives an element of fog of war to boot.
Although that said even I admit it is a better option than the abject horror of casualty caps!

Complex tables, long lists of modifiers do me in.
I don't like casualty caps, etc. but will consider them.

I want the game resolved in 2 or 3 hours and don't want my head to hurt from making too many calculations when it's over.

Lots of counters on the units/table top.
I like the table top to be free of things that are not in with the terrain.

So no dice, counters, writing on the back of bases etc.

That and a quick reference chart that is more than 1 sheet of A4.

Zombie game rules, since I have no interest in zombies.

Seems the insurance companies are interested in them though, because you can now buy a policy to insure against zombie attacks.

I'm still reading the rules after passing page 10.

The rules are so complex and/or numerous that after reading them once I don't have a clear perception of how they work.

Rules that require me to buy other supplements in order to wargame the period/campaign/battle I want.

Having to buy/use loads of different polyhedral dice.

Counters/casualty caps &c. that clutter/spoil the look of the table.

Zombie game rules, since I have no interest in zombies.

Then why would you read them?

Not enough figures on the table for a mass battle game.

Rulesets with a stupid, or 'funny' title…

Agree with AB, lots of counters cluttering up the table.

DM

Anything that needs an umpire – I have enough trouble finding one other person interested in gaming, two is impossible.

Any rules that allow pre-measuring, or where the designer made one faction over powered 'cause they are so "cool" -- typically the French (Nappies) or the Germans ( many periods). Premeasurement is my biggest beef. Oh. Or rules that are too detailed for Mass combat, or too abstract for skirmish combat -- the level of detail should scale with the type of combat the rules are trying to reflect.

That are inconsistent within themselves.
I excitedly bought one set that promised to encompass a campaign system for GNW. I never could get the territories to line up points wise with the scenario.
Ugh

rules with umpires, lots of counters and other fiddly bits, long lists of charts/modifiers

Rules that call for multi figure bases for a range I have based singly. Here's looking at you, Death in the Dark Continent (which, sadly, has single base 28mm figures on the cover).

Anything with "Fast Play" in the title. Rules that can't or won't give me a frame of reference like ground scale or time. For the former I expect that it will lack substance and in the latter case it makes me think (perhaps unfairly) that they haven't done their homework.

Written orders.

I will try anything once -- well almost anything -- as long as someone else is introducing the game.

The problem is if I am trying to get my local group to try it. Then I get picky. I know what these guys like and what won't fly.

Prime example was Panzer War -- most comprehensive and complex tank game I have ever seen (which we may still play someday). The game was probably written for micro-armor and we play 15mm which is a small but not insurmountable problem.

Had everyone fired up to give it a try. They down loaded the rules and then came the suggestions to do something else (which is code for lets not play this game). Over the months that followed, one guy or another will talk about maybe sitting down and playing a 'quick game'. We shall see.

Oh yeah, good one, written orders too.

Rules that are 50 pages or more. If it isn't written is a clear concise manner, then forget it. Lots of long charts with 10 modifiers per roll. If it's a pain in my @ss to play, then I won't. If the rules are too rigid, or too loose. I know, that's subjective, but there it is.

Highly complicated/convoluted charts. More than one or two rolls to resolve a single event. Games you can't play without the 50+ page book in your hand at all times. Rules that use many different types of dice. Rules that you play for six hours and you have only played two and a half turns!

"I would never use these rules because……"

I did not write them.

they were written for someone under 10 years old (40k 3rd +)

RobH

I really don't like roster systems. I've tried with Priciples of War but can't get into them because of the roster. I'll go with causalty removal but prefer to mark casualty status with almost anything other than casualty caps. A long set of modifiers won't help either.

Anything where tanks don't have armor but do have "hit points", ugh…

Written orders and any system I cant play solo, in case I want to run something myself….

Oh yeah, forgot to mention simultaneous movement.

Nothing in the mechanics. I have no interest in historical mass combat after 1400 AD, but I don't read those rules.

Lots of chits or counters on table and complex charts and modifiers are big no-nos for me.

Also, it's more of a vibe thing, but if a rulset feels like it is going to take more than 2 hours to play (60-90) miniutes is usually my preferred time) or require alot of book checking, I'm probabably not going to play it.

I prefer quick moving, easy to learn games, so it's generally not hard to know within the first 3 pages of a ruleset if I should keep reading or just flip through for the pretty pictures (assuming it has any) and return it to the shelf.

Buckets of dice

Saving throws in wargames (don't mind them in RPGs)

Casualty removal

Anything with a figure ratio of higher than 1:30 (Or do I mean lower than 1:30? I prefer 1:10 or even 1::5)

Counters/caps/markers on the table

Inconsistent good results: sometimes a high roll is good, sometimes a low roll is good.

Inconsistent targets for rolls: sometimes it's "greater than," sometimes it's "greater than or equal to."

What was the question again?
Oh yeah, If I wrote them.

Overwhelming complexity. Too much bookkeeping (and I'm an accountant). Only one player moves/plays at a given time.

Rules that won't allow historical tactics (e.g., the artillery rules in FoW, which do not allow fire at terrain features, which is what artillery does).

Worst of all: "time scales" that allow some troops to do myriad things while others can do nothing. It can be done with movement sequence (e.g., Piquet, in which I had an army set up on a hill and the entire opposing army marched all the way to my right rear and then attacked, while I was unable to react due to lousy die rolls). It can be done with simple things like turning cards to determine who goes next (e.g., Mein Panzer and The Rules With No Name). It can be done by the whole system (e.g., Empire III). It's ugly as a game, and it leaves many players sitting around with nothing to do.

rulebooks as thick as phone books

or

games that need 3 or more rule books (I can barely deal with 2, but more than that, forget it!)

LIKE rules that have 1 page quick reference guides, even if actual rules are much more lengthy.

I would never use these rules because:

1. It uses something besides inches for measuring.
2. The smallest unit of movement is a Brigade.
3. It has a figure ratio of more than 1:50.
4. It requires way too much math.
5. It has more than one area of movement rate (like AOE).
6. It has too many charts.
7. It has more than 12 pages.
8. It uses written orders.
9. It requires more than four figures to the base.
10. It has different number of figures for dismounted and mounted cavalry.
11. You have to keep track of stuff in your head like so many inches is a function and I have this many functions etc.
9. It has to have a referee of some kind.
10. The command rules are the least bit complex.
11. It does not tell you exactly by width and length the size of bases required or recommended.
12. The charges take more than one page to explain.
13. It does not have online support.
14. If I cannot talk to the guy standing right next to me.
15. It uses cards for movement (other than TSATF)
16. It doesn't tell me what armies can skirmish and which can't.
17. It has complicated skirmish rules.
18. It is fuzzy when it comes to occupying building rules.
19. The rules are not laid out in sequence of play order.
20. Does not have a good index.
21. It does not list scales of play. As in ground scale, unit scale, time scale, figure scale etc.
22. The rules are "fuzzy" that is not specific and left to players to figure out.

-rosters…no way, hate 'em.

- massive lists of modifiers…don't need the headache

- complex or lengthy turn sequence…too often folks forget which sub phase they're in?

- lots of reference tables…too much to remember, I much prefer easy to remember stat lines.

- lots of special markers or counters…clutters the table.

- uses different dice or reads dice in many different way…too confusing to roll high sometimes, low others, or to roll dice and add together one time or individually others.

- written orders

Card driven games, that don't suply cards, in other words rules that say you need these cards, now go make them.

Also rules that use blinds.

For me it was trying to fathom the THW rules and reaction tables – tried, put me right off. Going to give them another go as I think they'll be better the more I try them and it was most likely me being thick! ;-p