"Do you have to try the latest new rules in your period?" Topic

I used to. I started out in the Anericsn Revolution with 1776. I liked them.
Then I bought Complete Brigadier. Then the British ones that had actual black and white photos!
And more and more and others.
Some I actually played. But it was always a matter of feverishly paging through rules I thought I understood to see if units could countercharge. Not much fun for the players. I usually got my ad hoc rulings wrong.
Then I would try a new set.
Within the last few years I have given up my mad quest for "the perfect set of rules" and have settled on what we know how to play.
I now play exclusively Age of Reason where the units are regiments, and The Sword and the Flame when I want a small battle skirmishy feel.
The games have been much improved.

To make this a poll:
1. There is always something to learn from a new set. I buy them all.
2. It's too much trouble with the learning curve to play it right.
3. Let the new guy who already plays it try it out. He can use my figures!
4. I write my own rules, so I have no problems.

Nope, I don't chase after the newest thing or the perfect rule set. I do like to try out new rules/rules I have never played when I go to conventions in order to see if they have something to offer or are worth purchasing.

What you have now sounds like a great way to do it. I may have to steal that idea.

1.5 I buy ones I think have something new to offer, but not all of them.

I do buy most medieval rules sets when they come out. I would say #1 as for the poll.

No…

Halh
f way between two and three Let someone else try them out first and then read the reviews If it some significant benefits then either switch or try to incorporate some of the points into the current set I am using If it involves rebasing then no way

5. I already have a rule set that I enjoy, and I am not currently in the market for a new one.

No

I agree with 79thPA. I like to try out new rules sets at conventions to see if they are worth buying or I incorporate a few things I like into my existing rule set.

I consider reading rules a part of the job :D

I used to buy almost every new rule set that came out. Now I stick to rules I know unless I try a new set at a con and think it may be worthwhile to buy a set.

I'm with arsbelli. When I find rules I like I stick with them. I hate reading rules for the most part. I'd rather read something else. If new rules come out and I don't have rules for that thing that I like yet, I'll get them.

For example, Osprey just released a new set of rules for ancient naval warfare. I don't have a set of rules for that I enjoy, so I'll buy them and read them.

Only in Ancients and Renaissance. I'm good with my other periods.

No, I'm very happy with the rules I now use

TRY them? I usually don't even know what they are. Hmmm. Let me hedge. I'll try anything 2-4 pages long which doesn't require rebasing. Getting too old for rules which come in multiple volumes.

I have wasted a lot of money on new rule sets. Most of my favs are 20+ years old.

6. I don't "HAVE" to, though I generally used to like to.

Now though, I tend to sit back, wait, and read the reviews of others to see what people think of them. Then, if the feedback is very positive, I'll consider purchasing them.

Whenever possible, I like to try them out first as well, if someone else already owns them, just to be sure.

Depends on the period, the author, the mechanics and the scale. I research everything new that comes out and if the description and approach seems intriguing, I'll spring for it. There are authors and mechanics that I avoid (not because they are necessarily bad, but they don't fit what I like). I also tend to avoid anything that requires rebasing or getting into yet another new scale.

I play the rules I like and know which give me a game I enjoy. I will buy some new rules or supplements like British Grenadier scenario books evan if I do not play the rules.

While some of the rules I play are professionally published (I.e. wings of war/glory) most are written by gamers for gamers and are free. For Crimean war I use "Charge of The Light Brigade" by David Raybin. Fun set which looks good on the table and is a lot of fun and feels (IMHO) right for that war. Have used it for Franco Prussian and worked well. For American Rev War it is either "Loose Files and American Scramble" or as of late Jim Purkey's "Fife and Drum." Both give a great game. For my new war of 1812 I will be using a modified set of one of the above.

I like to read new rules (not every set, mind you) but my mates are opposed to new rules. In order to avoid torches and pitchforks, I generally just read, don't try new rules.

Of late we mostly play Bloody Big Battles (last year and a half and sometimes One Hour Wargames.

Depends. If the initial descriptions and reviews generally follow along with my preferences and rebasing isn't an issue, I'll take a flyer.

No

I do like to try out new rules/rules I have never played when I go to conventions in order to see if they have something to offer or are worth purchasing.

This.

Generally rebasing is a "no joy" for actually playing.

When I find a rules set that works for a specific era/period/genre I stick with it until I have played something new enough times in other peoples' games to know it is better.

I'm with 79thPa and Robert on this one. I rarely buy new rules sets. I'm comfortable and enjoy the rules we already use and most current rules sets are too darn expensive to buy one after the other. I'd rather spend that money on figures or terrain.

4. I normally write my own rules (as do most of the circle I game with).

I occasionally buy a set, but rarely because they are new.

I'm not proud of it but I'm definitely in the rules junkie camp so Number 1 possibly 4
When I started out I was on a quest to uncover the holy grail of WWII war games. My initial inquiries on TMP etc led to so many opinions that I felt the only way to be certain was to experience the recommendations first hand.

As I encountered each new rule set l found myself intrigued by the rules themselves. Fascinated by examining how the system worked, how authenticity it might represent the reality intended (my opinion of course) how practical or functional as a source of entertainment it might prove to be. Knowing this and realizing how fun a game is requires play and I still really enjoy checking out the rules.

My frustration is often coming across in an otherwise mediocre game a certain feature or mechanic that l consider amazing. Then Im left pondering how to incorporate this feature into my favorite rules which often is totally incompatible 😧

Anyway in recent years I've given up messing with home rules or home brews and reexamine what constitutes gaming happiness.

At the moment my view is good company, good food, bad drink and a game that entertains is good enough for me…maybe ill be back searching for the holy grail again

For Ancients – Yes (Sword & Spear)
For Napoleonic – Ummm… Noooo… (Napoleon's Campaigns in Miniature).

No, there are so many new rules these days.

I'll read reviews and game reports for anything that gains a bit of popularity.

Db

Depends on the description of the rules and their basic concepts. I can fall prey to any ad if the rules are for a period that I have interest in (and probably have painted figures for).

I enjoy reading rules but not playing them all. I disagree very strongly with the school of thought that you cannot review or comment on rules unless you have played a number of games with them.

I'm fairly conservative.
I know what I like, and most rules don't fit into that category.

Also when I find something I like I usually stick to it.

I'm loyal. Be it to rules companies ect.

Being a writer of rules I am not inclined to just buy rules. If I see somthing written by house that does not demand you buy the rules and the lists and the models and its inovative I do. These are rare.

Most are unrepresentative in my period (modern and WWII) and aimed more at modellers than regular players like me. We play modern most weeks, same nationality, same rules and we have still not figured out how real generals and there teams do it. We get lost with even our very simple rules.

Not for the sake of just having the rule. I prefer to try new rules out via a friend's game or convention game to see if I like it first.

Please include a choice for 'not a historical gamer.'

I love reading new games and rules, though we don't always get a chance to play them.

I can usually get an understanding of how a game plays from reading the rules. This means that I can get some enjoyment from them as a publication apart from their utility as a game system.
However I've never bought vast quantities simply because I'd rather read something else in most circumstances.
A fair few I have read have been a disappointment….but it's better to be disappointed after reading than after purchasing figures, painting them and playing with them.
For all the innovations declared at launch most rules fit in to one of three categories
1. The player controls everything in a simplistic manner
2. The player controls everything in a more involved manner
3. The player doesn't control everything. This usually allows for more complication in the game without too many headaches for the player.

Rarely buy rules anymore (nor ever that into it, maybe twenty rulesets across thirty years) but am still looking for elements that give me my desired experience of a very fast game with minimal table clutter but maximum figures on the table. Simplicity trumps EVERYTHING else. I want to 'play' with figures on a really nice table (dynamic diorama level if at all possible) and not digest arcane rules that don't advance the fun. Okay, fun does trump simplicity – or are they intertwined and inseparable twins?

Seems others, as am I, are a bit dismayed by the steady flow of new rules onto an astonishingly overcrowded market place. That alone gives me pause to consider anything new. No way there is quality to equal the quantity at the pace of release. But that doesn't mean there isn't that carefully developed and painstakingly play tested rule set out there somewhere. But knowing which one that is, well, that is the trick, isn't it?