"Are we 'sheep'?" Topic

So that's 3 lamb curries and a poppadom? Very very goodlie sir. That'll be 20,25 thank you.

Yeah larfing over this line. You enjoy what you enjoy, lazy minds or no.
Cheers and I'll have a pint of what your drinking Richard.:)

"Nah. Sheep are customers who always have to buy not only the rules but the miniatures and terrain for both sides of a conflict, knowing that likely nobody will play the game or buy the toy soldiers for it."

This is the most ridiculous comment on this thread, although all the ire towards Chain of Command (which was not even the subject of this thread) gives it a good run for the money…

I have bought both sides for many of the games I get interested in, not because nobody else will play them (the crowd I get almost every week at my house will attest to that) but because very few of my friends can afford the cost and time to collect and paint armies. Also because I WANT both sides. How does that equate with "sheepdom"?

Hell, this whole thread started with a completely flawed premise and has spiraled into the absurd really quickly.

Anymore, I play my own rules. There are a few commercial sets out there that I enjoy. But, the hobby is getting expensive. The products are getting far too involved. The GW Codex scheme is what companies are going for these days. I am not willing to pay $100 USD+ on a game/source books that may or may not strike my fancy. So, personally, I am not a sheep.

I suspect others like the scheme set up above and are willing to pay there hard earned money to play these sets of rules. They like the granularity and the exercise of being able to build their "perfect" army or whatever. More power to them really. It's all horses for courses of course!

Not all companies are going down the codex route. In looking at Chain of Command and Bolt Action I discovered that CoC is providing free army list downloads and their latest product, a campaign book, is just £3.50 GBP.

Mind you, looking at the kicking Chain of Command seems to be getting here, even personal abuse towards the author, maybe that information isn't welcome.

Mind you, looking at the kicking Chain of Command seems to be getting here, even personal abuse towards the author, maybe that information isn't welcome.

Yeah. Not sure why the author is getting the abuse. From the interviews I've heard with him, he seems like a nice guy. TFL games are not for me but they are good products and they don't really try to "up sell" you with add-on after add-on.

This thread, to me, seems to be about gamers who have a reasonably consistent opponent pool and those who don't.

If you live in a place where you and your group have been gaming for years, then you have a different outlook from those of us who don't (e.g., I transferred duty stations frequently over the past 20 years).

Gamers who have that network – even if it's one guy you KNOW will play whatever you bring – can play more varied stuff more easily. Those of us who have to hope somebody at the FLGS (if there even is one) plays what we like usually have to stick with the mass marketed stuff. Sometimes we get lucky and there's another outlier player or two who'll join in but that's rare.

As discussions go this one is particularly bizarre. If you want to discuss race relations you don't run into a bar full of coloured folk and shout the N word, which is a bit like what has happened here. All of which means this is a debate I may be best avoiding.

That said, Sid the Singh specifically said:

"So, if I am to understand this correctly, anyone who plays Bolt Action or FoW (or perhaps any other WWII game) over Chain of Command is a benighted fool who must be shown the light of the messiah that is Richard Clark?

Reminds me of a bumper sticker I once read … "Jesus, save me from your followers."

That's very interesting I am sure. However, you appear to be making the fundamental error in assuming that 28mm Fanatik is a Chain of Command gamer. he is not. He plays Bolt Action and, as he has stated, has never played Chain of Command.

As the author of Chain of Command, my position is unequivocal: I don't care what anyone plays, so long as they enjoy themselves. Rule sets do not compete with each other; people choose the set which best suits them for whatever reasons. That is one of the great strengths of the hobby and one which we should celebrate.

Richard Clarke
(with one 'e', like messiah)

That bumper sticker quote is not meant to be abuse toward the author, so not sure where that assumption comes from.

As to my assumption that the original poster played CoC, I would note that the original post made a comparison between Bolt Action – in his view, the sheeple's game – and CoC – his presumption that it is a hidden gem:

How do we get the people who are playing BA into other underrated and undermarketed rules like CoC? Do we crash their little clubs and get them to play a few games of CoC so they'll realize what they're missing?

Not sure how else to interpret that aside from proselytizing he plays over another game. Now, if the original poster chooses to come back and recant his original statement and modify it, then sure, the color of the discussion is changed and a legitimate discussion can be had; but until then, as far as can be seen from the above quote, he is an acolyte.

Perhaps, if people actually followed Richard's viewpoint about different games having different value to different players, such discussions wouldn't devolve into conflict – the very meaning of the Jesus quote!

Sid,

Might I refer you to the original poster's second posting, time-stamped 17 November 2014 at 2:59 pm PST, in which he does precisely that and states he is exclusively a Bolt Action player?

He also claims his intention was to be provocative and in this he would appear to have been entirely successful.

@22ndFoot … sorry, but I'm not sure what your point is?

As I already noted, if the original poster chooses to return and recant his original comment, that's great. We can have a legitimate discussion. It still doesn't invalidate my original interpretation given that I responded to the original post. Unless of course, I somehow missed getting my official TMP time travel machine that allows me to see what someone is going to say later in the day.

I'm not a sheep, in fact being Welsh I find Sheep very attractive!

@22ndFoot … Ah. I see. Well, quite frankly not sure how I am having a second go. I am merely clarifying my interpretation of the original post without benefit of his update.

I like miniatures and games.

I'm a lamb chop medium rare with baked potato and sour cream topping. Mmmmm.
I'm game play all games as and when to my own prerogative. And yes I've got dusty rule books and figures, but so what.
Cheers happy gaming ba-aaa.;)

I like miniatures and games.

I also like games involving miniatures and miniature games. The latter makes it easy to travel.

Make mine curry goat, and my troops Phagons armed to their razor-sharp teeth:

Sheep? You mean like these:

or like these:

Just saying'…

Leland R. Erickson
Metal Express
metal-express.net

A game is a game is a game, I never played WH40K and have no plans too not saying I will not play if asked, do I think that those who only play 40k are sheep, no. It's a game they enjoy playing, for most part it's just not my cup of tea. Many of use got started playing at one time or at a another and that game made an imprint on us. Oh this game or that game was just so much fun way back when I remember playing, oh those were the days.

Whatever game is marketing well today may not do well later many of us have seen games come and then one night are just gone from the market, or we have just moved on to a different game that called to us. If you asked anyone what's is their current favorite game is for XYZ time period you'll get a dozen different answers.
If you ask most of those same people if they ever played game X you'll find many of them have. If you want someone to play don't ask a group ask an individual if they don't want to them ask another and don't ask them on the groups game night ask if they would mind playing on a different night

Some time players stay with a game because the size of the rules for another game, can seem over whelming. I remember when I bought my first game box of "Squad Leader" WOW was it heavy into the rules and I thought I would never be able to play this game, but I dug in and it took me two weeks to get through them and to understand them very well I was hooked and love that game and still love it to this day and still have it and from time to time I pull it out and spend a weekend playing even the wife likes it and it's to only game she said that she has an intrest to sit down to play.

There "My Two Cents"

The question should be asked…why if you do not like a set of rules you feel you have to bash them or make negative remarks about those who play them?

Been a wargamer for 30+ years and I happen to enjoy playing and GMing Bolt Action…

Watched CoC game at H'con and thought they moved a little slow? But do not see the need to start a negative thread about them…

SFC Retired

The question should be asked…why if you do not like a set of rules you feel you have to bash them or make negative remarks about those who play them?

The intent of this thread isn't to bash or put down Bolt Action and other popular rules like 40K and FOW at all. I'm a BA and 40K player myself so may be guilty of 'sheep behavior' as well.

I merely raised the question as to whether our consumer 'preference' (and the relative popularity of BA, FOW, 40K etc. over other less popular and marketed options like CoC) is explained as much by extraneous factors such as marketing/product saturation, appeal (attractiveness, 'slickness,' production value), and our ability to readily find opponents as the intrinsic value of the product itself, such as a rules system's playability, flow, easy-to-understandability, well-writteness, 'realism' and accuracy to the period depicted, etc.

Yes.
Bah.

Okay, here's a considered view on the whole thing.

I actually think that the popularity of rule sets is very much a regional thing. Where I live, in the UK, I have half a dozen wargames clubs within a 30 minute drive of where I live. I attend my local club once a week and the norm there is that whoever is putting on the game supplies the armies, provides the scenario and umpires the game. It's a nice, casual and very social arrangement which is typical of UK clubs.

In other words, to put it simply, we get our gaming kicks close to home and regularly.

Talking to pals of mine in the US and Canada; you guys seem to do your gaming in a more intensive manned by going to Cons of several days in length and getting in as many games as possible. That is a very different to the UK and it creates different imperatives.

I, in the UK, will collect both armies and then go to meet my regular gaming friends and put on a game with a set of rules which I like. These are mates I've know for many years and so we all rub along together and play what our pals want to play. We can, therefore, play any rules on the whole spectrum of available games.

My pals in the US tend to drive a long way to a Convention, hoping to get as many games as possible as they don't get to game at home. The best way for them to achieve this is to go with the biggest set of rules around and pick a 1500 point army (or whatever is the optimum) and then get the maximum gaming in they can.

There is no judgement here, but I can assure you that this makes a big difference as to what is popular in your time zone.

Let me give you a very specific example. I have been to about twenty shows in the UK this year and, at the majority of them, there were more games being run with TooFatLardies rules than from any other rule publishers. That includes high value shows like Partizan and, we think, Salute. At Crisis in Antwerp – the biggest and best shown on the continent – Chain of Command games won two awards for the best participation game and, thanks to James and Scrivs, the most innovative game.

Does this mean that our rules are the best in the world? Of course not. But what I am suggesting is that terms like "less popular" may be correct on the US convention circuit, but they are not representative of what is happening across the pond where the structure of our gaming network means that the need to conform to what is popular at the next Con is just not an issue.

@Toofatlardies. Well stated.

I think this also tends to reflect the general approach to gaming in the US versus the UK. I have the impression – reinforced by Richard's post – that there tends to be a more competitive approach in the US. Hence, the desire for more concrete, "universal" rules that don't require interpretation or umpires. Rules that allow for point based forces versus scenario-driven rules.

Coming from a Fantasy/Sci Fi background, you see this in the way 40k is played. The desire for "composition" rules and such. The fact that Warmachine/Hordes was created as a reaction to GW's loose rules. Reading through a Privateer Press rule book is like reading a technical manual. Caters to a very specific type of player and is very popular in the US … because it is so tournament/convention friendly.

Also, I am not sure if this is true in the UK, but the US tends to be a fairly hyper-commercialized culture. At least in my area, I don't know anyone who would be willing to play a game that did not have high production values. I can see Battlegroup being picked up because of its glossy nature and perhaps CoC as its also well produced, but something like IABSM or PBI, unlikely.

Well, I do most of my gaming at the local game store, but yes I see the point. At the store who knows who might show up, what their experience level is, etc. So there's definitely a preference for rules that are 'tight' and don't require any sort of 'referee', since there's no one around to ref and it's easier logistically to if everyone shows up with their own stuff.

-Will

I am not so sure this is a US/UK thing or any national thing.

It is more about how much gaming someone gets exposed to. If your happy to get one game a month and its an 'event' in your life rolling up some beers with mates in their shed or it has a competitive edge with strangers in a competition, you will enjoy anything.
If on the other hand, you feel unfortunate to only get in three games this week, and two of them were the same period with the same rules so it feels your gaming is a bit 'samey', you will be exposed to more rules and become more demanding of their performance.

If you are on one side, you can always claim you dont like charts and on the other side you can claim you arent a sheep.

And here is something to explain all about sheep and charts

link

To me the questions are always:

Firstly, above all others:

1. What game can I easily get opponents for?

Then, in rough order of importance

2. What game gets a result in an evening with a decent level of complexity
3. What game feels most realistic to play?
4. (If its one with associated minis) Do I like the minis, & if not can I proxy?

…and for games with defined base sizes

5. Do I have to rebase?

As to Bolt Action and CoC, I've played both, the guys at our club play more BA but do play CoC so I play more BA but do play CoC. Personally I prefer the 2FL game system but not enough to refuse a game of BA :)

My two cents.

All the good rules in the world are great but when it comes down to it, you need players.

I have a lot of really good rules and games gathering dust because nobody plays them.

Sure there may be better rules out there, but if nobody is playing them, what is the point?

I say let people play what they want, when they want, and for the reasons they choose and leave judgement at the door.

-Eli

I like CoC…

Sorry couldn't help it… But really the choice will come down to what the people around play and what they want from a game. Our club (apart from a couple of us) play BA because they are used to similar rules (40K) want to power build their odd platoons and use lots of flamethrowers. They are not bothered about really playing WWII, they want a WWII game with lots of action. So it is the ideal game for their needs.

It now drives me crazy although initially I was happy to get 10 other people to play against… So like many things in life it seems the best rules are the ones you are playing.

I want to be a Sheep Dog. How can I round all these virtual sheep up and get them to buy all our products? How about if I bark. "WOOF WOOF" will you all now be so terrified of me that you will buy all our stuff. ;-).

I guess as one of the lesser known lots it would be good if we had a list that at leased named us "Nameless ones" perhaps with a description. (SOB SOB) nobody even mentiond us in the lesser known one (BOO HOO – THERE NOW FOLLOWS A BOUT OF HISTERICAL WAILING AND NASSHING OF TEETH ) ;-).

Dose this mean by not buying one of the big boys I class as a Wolfe. "I AM THE WOLFE MASTER" but do I have to wear Sheeps clothing? ;-)

In the end you play what you want if you can fined a like mides soul, or what you can get to play if the former fails.

Excellent post Mr Lardie. Spot on IMHO.

Eli makes a couple of good points too: the best rules in the world that have a player base of one are irrelevent.

Whatever encourages players with "take up" – 'slickness' and 'glossy-ness' or whatever – I din't think we should be quick to condemn. This is a visual hobby. If it weren't, we'd all be playing with blocks of wood and not pretty painted figures.

So visual appeal is important.

John T

My general wargaming policy is that I will play your game if you will play may game. That way we get enough players to run games without dividing into tiny sects.

I played both Flames of War (silly) Shot Mom (boring) as long as their advocates came to our games to play something I liked (Combat Command). When they stopped coming to our games we stopped coming to theirs. As we have many more players it seemed silly to me.

But to answer the basic question – currently marketing has trimphed over game design so companies put resources into pictures/glossy stuff rather than design and playtesting.

But – and this is important – many of the non-glossy designs simply aren't that good. They are often complex, slow moving "simulations" of minatue hailed as "too good" for the sheep to understand. I believe a well designed though non-glossy rule set can make market in roads -IF GIVEN A CHANCE.

DBX is the best example of design quality succeeding even without gloss.

TomT

TomT
Good post. It's the balance between the minutiae and playability. Anyone can design a complicated but detailed game. The art is in balancing the two. I've found miniatures players are very visual and it's about creating visual realism with terrain and models and game rules only/mostly enable them to create these "realistic" scenes. This is especially true at conventions where the games need to be eye catching to get players to sign and rules simple enough to have them understand right away. That means game mechanics borrowed from other games. Game publishers capitalize on this by offering what they desire. This is my observation, not a criticism. If you like and it's rewarding then play it. Many players like to roll lots of dice and blow things up and are not interested in knowing the details on tactics, weapons engagement strategies, etc.

My problem with many of the rule systems out there are that you are pretty much a spectator who rolls the dice. I'm referring to games with a high density of models on the table with no real room to maneuver and it's a straight firepower slugfest. I applaud some of the variable initiative rules but it still does not simulate a way for one opponent to get inside the others decision loop.

Fog of War is very hard to simulate so in effect most games are almost reduced to a chess move where the player can spend time evaluating all of the permutations of his movement options to get it just right. I wish there was a mechanism, play aid or tool for Fog of War because it would even out defenders fighting outnumbered without needing 1:1 force ratios to be fair.

The other thing about most rules sets is there are very few decisions you make that simulate real life decisions that leaders or crew would need to make.

I do think the glossy eye candy publications have helped grow the hobby. No doubt about that.

Maybe some day we'll get an Open Source type of game development (like Linux and Firefox) that players throughout the wargaming community can contribute to. However, I doubt if that will happen anytime soon as you can't seem to get two players to agree on what suppression is and how to model it.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag:

Yes I agree games should not substitues for books by giving long lists of "realistic" data but should instead attempt to simulate the manuver aspect of WWII warfare. If I want data I'll pour over a reference book but gaming I want decision making. Frank Chadwick's old Command Decision (esp I & II) did a decent job of this with the order chit system (borrowed for GW's best game: Space Marine).

I've tried to do the same thing with Combat Command but in a much simplier convention friendly manner.

You do need visuals in a minatures game (or what's the point?) That's why I've never been keen on hidden movement as in a real WWII battle you'd never get to see any mini's.

I've compromised by leaving minis on table but excluding them as targets till spotted.

To get some Fog of War, I cheat by having players lay order chits but then start the turn with a movement phase which scambles the board. So your throwing orders into a dynamic environment. Simple and works OK.

TomT

Meehhhhhhh! (Is that sheeplike enough?)

I think games that initially become popular are not so much a regional thing, especially in this day and age. What really happens is the way people get exposed to a new product is, they walk into their favorite game source store and see the new product, or, they first get exposed to it by picking up a magazine and see what's advertised, and lastly after those two things have happened then, they experience the game with someone who has it or by word of mouth, and reviews they read.

Marketing IS NOT UNDERATED it is almost everything. A company like OSPREY has incredible exposure over the competition, especially when they hook-up with another powehouse like WARLORD GAMES. That's a 1 – 2 punch that has enormous influence on the gaming public. You combine products with it and you have a winner despite the merits of the game.

The one blogger said this:
Deciding factors:
Game time, how long does it take to play?
How easy is it to learn?
Will it satisfy my personal idea of what WW2 combat is like?How many players can play one game without it getting bogged down?
How many others in my immediate area/group/club play this rule set?
How easy is it to get a few figures, paint them up and play a game?

None of those things can really be determined unless you actually purchase and play the game, despite reviewers comments since those are subjective too! So, that means games like Flames of War (FoW) or Bolt Action (BA) get top billing and top exposute and utlimately "market share", it's a given. There's not doubt that these things are on every shelf and in every related hobby magazine. So, naturally people will gravitate towards them over other, perhaps, better games. Ignorance is bliss, and, therefore people might enjoy a better experience, and in my opinion a more authentic one, to be sure if they took the time to play other less well known but more historically correct games with better representation of operational warfare than games such as Bolt Action.

Naturally, play what you like is the bottom line and as many have said, "if you're having fun, who cares then?!"

But, it is true that games that don't have the marketing power will always suffer.

Remember, Osprey is a book publishing company. So was Avalon Hill. They put out products where there is a ready demand of customers. I think as far as wargame publishing they are more concerned with selling books rather than developing a game. Nothing wrong with that just don't expect anything earthshaking or innovative from them. They are going to duplicate a successful formula, that's just good business.

I think the entire miniature wargaming industry could be on the brink of some really innovative breakthroughs because of nanotechnology, 3D printing and miniaturization of electronics. Mobile apps could be a way of using a gaming aid to speed up play. Smart Pens would allow hand written on paper orders or diagrams to be sent to a mobile device used by an umpire. Miniaturized GPS chips could allow positioning of units on the playing surface and relate their position to a digitized map enabling a playable way for hidden units and fog of war without record keeping. Miniature LED's can be used to simulate muzzle flashes of units firing. These are not things book publishers will be interested in.

Wolfhag

I think that the a ganes popularity types depends on players criteria for a game. Ignoring production values (pet vent issue). Players need to decide what they want.

My personal perception is that they want in general is (note this is one size fits majority not all):-

Lots of gambling

- The ability to snatch victory from defeat by a few luck dice rolls.

Rules that in effect tell them how to play –

This is not that daft if you don't understand the theory of say the co-operation of armour and infantry. and are fighting a gamne with them.

Not require too much thought on deployment or planning of an action – Planning a real fight with even a Infantry Light Tank Company with attached resources requires a lot of thought even if you don't have to write it down and knoledge. Difficult if you only a particular play once or twice a year.

A points system – It does make it easy to play a game against a stranger. The cost is hideious in terms of representing reality but if getting a game is more important than the standard of game then that is a reasonable compromise.

Many players have a passion for collecting and painting minatures and like to change rules for fun so again not an encouragement to understand in detail how one army works relative to another.

If you look at most game they head in this direction. its where the market is. A few like us head in a diffrent direction but we will never make a living out of it. Given the need to find players its not supprising games in this sector rise and fall. FOW was it, now others are beggining to rise. Its not really sheep its expediency.

What an excellent thread, and serves to reinforce the reasons I like and play Bolt Action:

1. It is an easy ruleset that has a fair amount of tactical depth. It's quick to pick up and teach to new players. Poor tactical decisions wind up losing a game, so I've never felt "cheated" by a single lucky dice roll.

2. The points system allows for relatively balanced pick up and play games between strangers as well as quick games with friends, and great interesting "what if" match-ups.

3. I like playing games. The above two reasons allow me to play lots of games. I played three games of Bolt Action last Saturday afternoon! The second one went so quickly we decided to swap table sides and play it again!

It's not my favorite game of all time, but the above three reasons mean it's one of them. I have a constant supply of opponents so I'm always assured of a game that will be fun.

Scenario-based historical games are great, but there's no such thing as one that meets the above three points.

Back in the 1990s early 2000s the only WW2 game a lot of gamers would play was Rapid Fire. Try to convince people to give WRG 2nd edition a go, or nascent 1st edition Flames of War for a change? No takers. The more things change, the more they stay the same…

It's not just glossy marketing and packaging that's making certain games sell; it's the package deal. When I started wargaming in my mid-late teens (this would have been the 1980s) and I had a plethora of Airfix, Matchbox and Revell figures and vehicles you had to find a set of rules but when it came to painting and organisation you were on your own. You had to find obscure books and do a lot of guesswork if you couldn't find them, only to find that the grandees at your local club either didn't like the rules you chose or else called you out over uniform and organisation accuracy. You may not like the mechanics of the games but Bolt Action and Flames of War opened up the hobby and made it easier for people who had previously never wargamed WW2 to get into it. You may hanker for the days of copious research, a well stocked library of painting guides, foreign language organisational books, bookmarked websites that claim to be the definitive site for Army X but I bet that's from the perspective of someone well established in the hobby. If better marketing, presentation and support material make it easier for people to get into wargaming, then I'm for it.