"Best-Looking Bad Ruleset?" Topic

Which miniature wargaming ruleset(s) looked great on the shelf, but were terrible to play?

Tactica. You don't play it. It plays you.

Legacy of Glory

Napoleon by Foundry.

I enjoyed many great games of Tactica.

This is an awful thread, BTW. Basically you are just getting gamers to slag other gamers.

Field of Glory

quite a few…
For example the WW1 "Over the Top"…Nice cover, nice TOE including bottle washers and cooks …and indeed very playable if you have a pair lawyers interpretating the rules for you, a secretary sitting on your legs making calculations for morale, Firing ecc…and a full weekend for the first two mooves

Warhammer 40,000

Rich Bliss, I don't have a dog in this fight, but that's a pretty funny comment about "Tactica"!

This is an awful thread, BTW. Basically you are just getting gamers to slag other gamers.

Being critical of products, not people.

To quote Lord Tyrion, "But we're having so much FUN!!!"

Getting back to the OP….
Tactica always seemed like a chess puzzle. After all the folderol, it was "White to mate in two."

I was excited when Tactica came out.
It broke the WRG hegemony and it had pretty exciting production values that were quite novel at the time.
But horribly inflexible army orders of battle and scenario.
Plus some of their claims about being "historically accurate" fell apart when you did the math on the armies (far too many late imperial Roman cataphracts if I recall correctly).

After a couple of games I gave up on it.

Chef de "Crappolla" (Batallion)

Chef de Bataillon. After 3 hours, we finished a turn and
Nothing was accomplished. That was 18 years ago and I am still looking for anybody that completed a game.

I agree with Lucius.

Warhammer Trafalgar – lovely book and very useful for modelling reference but I just didn't like the rules although I understand David Manley has modified and improved them no end.

FOG.

I fell asleep after three pages.

Like Timmo UK, I usually bring out Warhammer Trafalgar when I want an example of Style over Substance. You know something is amiss when even the rules author admits he uses house rules.

However, I don't regret buying it. Most of the book is scenarios, history, modelling and painting guides, that are very good and relevant to Napoleonic naval in general.

Cheers,
JohnG

I found FoG Ancients tedious to play, especially the melee rules. FoGR is better.
Not so good looking was Age of Might and Steel. It *looks* playable, but has multiple ambiguities, contradictions and lacks clarity to the point that you really don't know if you're playing correctly. Somewhere in there might be a good set of rules, but it needs plenty of work

I actually enjoyed playing FoG Ancients, never played FoGR; but FoG Napoleonics was a god awful mess. Pretty book though, as always.

i also remenber "Long Knives"..to fight Pony Wars …..very originla idea to let natives indians to fight in their peculiar mode…but in practice except buiyng your castinsg and painting them you had no other power over them once put in a tabletop…all was ruled..by the rules…i imagine the Indians castings or small airfix plastics as i tried to use in the game are still aunting the author feet while is sleeping…

"Tactica. You don't play it. It plays you."

That is funny: in my opinion, it shows a complete lack of any sense and or grasp of the rules.

For me, anything published by WRG.

Black Powder and its offshoots have come through unscathed so far. Hmm… can it be that people like them?

"For me, anything published by WRG."

What is good looking about WRG rules?

For me really style over substance is Napoleon by Foundry. It is much worse than Black Powder, because it is unplayable.

I feel the need to defend Trafalgar which I find to be a great set of rules for those with a passing interest in the period rather than dedicated naval gamers, or as an introductory set of rules for the period.

Black powder on the other hand I found to be very disappointing, being in my mind not a complete set of rules more like guidelines though very nicely produced

"What is good looking about WRG rules?"

Good looking in terms oF size (small), cover (simple).

And I completely agree with you regarding 'Napoleon'.

I agree about Age of Might and Steel. They are like a playtest set that was not finished. I was excited to pick them up. Totally let down.

By Fire and Sword.

Gorgeous book

Rubbish rules

3rd for AoMaS. Great ideas that needed to be developed more, especially WRT the fantasy elements and characters.

Dungeons and Dragons! – that should have been a far better game, but they went the silly way. (My opinion only – and I had a lot of fun playing it back in the day with a gifted GM)

I also have to say Foundry's Napoleon. Too many mechanics taken from other games and clumsily cobbled together.

Yes, that's exactly what AoMaS feels like – unfinished. Some playtesting (and resulting revisions), proof reading and editing might be what it needs

Infinity. Looks amazing. Completely awful rules.

FoG.

Stars and Bars

The Rules with no Name

All playable but not my cup of tea.

Hold on a second, Rules with no name is a BAD set because it isn't your cup of tea? I get you may not like the rules. We all have our likes and dislikes. But how does that make them bad? The original poster asked which sets look good but we're terrible to play. May I humbly suggest that TRWNN and your classification do not fit that criteria.

Thanks,

John

I'd have to say By Fire and Sword.

John, you can't tell someone why they are not allowed to call something "bad".
Well, yes you can. Freedom of speech and all that. But anybody can call anything they like "bad", and don't need your permission.

Facts are facts and opinion is opinion. This is an opinion thread. Facts are totally and completely irrelevant.

Tactica is beautiful. I found it boring and too predictable. To me, that makes it a bad game. Others disagree, but they are debating opinion.
And another thing…. It required twice as many figures as I had (fact) and many of the army lists were bizarre and silly. (Opinions)

"General de Brigade" – not terrible in the slightest, quite the opposite in fact.

BUT: they brought out a 'Deluxe Edition' – beautifully bound hardback, lavishly illustrated – and omitted the index.

It was a 'coffee table' book indeed, inasmuch as it was no use on the gaming table.

4th edition D&D is the only game I find both utterly gorgeous and completely dreadful :-)

WH40K. The better-looking it got, the less substance it had.

Yes, several on here are in no manner "good-looking", even by the standards of early eighties wargaming publications.
Maybe a twelve-word question taxes the attention span of some.

Beast – people answer the question they want to answer, I think :-)

Its like when someone asks for a set of skirmish medieval rules and someone is going to suggest Bolt Action and Harpoon :D

Lasalle

Actually I'm changing my vote to British Grenadier Deluxe version.

In fact excellent rules to play, and look very nice but the worst proof reading of rules I've seen. Hardly Deluxe. Inconsitency of terms, ommissions of key bits and general rushed out feel to them. I felt like I'd been really ripped off, and I'd bought them second hand.

However, we persisted (and you have to, especially for newbies) and as my mate said "There's a good rule set in there desperately trying to get out."

Trench Wars, might as well throw the dice at the figures to knock them down

Fog Of War and Team Yankee.

Unless you want Warhammer 40k / D&D for Historical Wargame.

Yea, they look great, but crappy rules are crappy rules.