"Rule sets: new versions" Topic

The ability to cope with change is an important part of functioning in the real world but does this have to manifest itself in the Wargaming world with constant revisions of rule sets?

I've just noticed Field of Glory-A are going to be receiving their third update:
slitherine.com/forum/viewtop … 20&t=72417

I can appreciate Slitherine's Borg-like pursuit of Perfection but when is enough, enough?
There are several problems when rule sets update.

Firstly, I think the rule set loses its integrity. It's hard to have faith in something that needed revising & may well need more in the future.

Secondly, it becomes a nuisance to remember *which* specific rules you're using. Half way through a game of #7, you suddenly realise you're using a redundant rule from #4.

Thirdly, no matter which version you're using, you will experience difficulties when you game against someone using a different version ( a lot like when the Scottish Shinty team meets the Irish Hurling mob).

So, despite any potential benefits, my reaction is AAARGGHHH!

Your feelings on amending rule sets?

Firstly, I think the rule set loses its integrity. It's hard to have faith in something that needed revising & may well need more in the future.

It is impossible to write a set of rules that are perfect the first time around. Those that strive for perfection before publishing never publish.

Then again, if you like a particular set of rules and they bring out a new version, why change? It is always claimed that the new version is "better" but that isn't always true …

A set of rules does not need constant "support", contrary to popular belief.

Sadly, resistance is futile.

If the updates are free or cheap and are to a set of e-rules, like a PDF, I have no problem with it.

Physically printed rules getting new editions that need buying can be problematic, for me at least.

I review my rules link whenever I am made aware of a problem by people who play them, and sometimes when I get a good idea for streamlining systems etc

So long as there is a good reason for changing a set of rules, I am all for it!

As long as the new rules use the existing army lists, I am all fine with it – though I would want a free pdf as update for those who do own the previous version of the rules.

Yet strangely, the first version rules are often the best

Phil

I often see people making the opposite complaint.
If there are no new versions of the rules and no new supplements they complain the rules are 'not supported'.

Really it's pretty simple:
If the new version is an improvement, it's a good thing.
If it isn't it's not.

What's this obsession with people wanting to play "the latest updated version"? It's not as if there's some divine knowledge given to us by the gods contained in the rules – or that they will lead to a supreme state of enlightenment or something like that.

If you're happy with the rules, why bother changing?

If you're not happy with the rules, find another set or modify them yourself.

I suspect there are irreconcilable personality differences between those who are happy with something which works, and those who want their experience 'refreshing' all the time.

Personally I find constant revisions to rules a pain, unless thye aer hcanges I've made myself:) Errata, theatre specific expansions etc are fine though.

I have played both FOG and FOG-R and I prefer FOG-R. So if the changes improve game play that will be good. There's a reason why people have gone to single base unit rules for ancients.

As long as people buy, it will continue….

And this third revision may well be moot as a good amount of the FOGAM player based has migrated to new rules – ADLG – faster, less fiddly and requiring far less figure (see single base comment above). On top of that the French have already taken care of the revisions before it arrived in English!

Single base systems leave me cold. I want my units to have mass and not be symbolic. I am less than excited about rules changes which require purchasing expensive new books.

What's this obsession with people wanting to play "the latest updated version

For the same reason people stand in line for an iphone 7*. Or install windows 10*

Some folks are easily swayed, I guess…

John T

*I have neither of these things…

Firstly, I think the rule set loses its integrity. It's hard to have faith in something that needed revising & may well need more in the future.

I'd suggest that not receiving updates is not a sign of a lack of need for said updates, only that they were never made. ;-)

With a print book, a new version is a hassle because you can't replace existing copies in circulation.
So it makes sense to wait until there's substantial changes.

With the hobby moving towards PDF though, I find there's no reason not to fix any issues that have cropped up, add the occasional new option or bit etc.

Pretty much anything I've done have received updates post-release, whether its clarifying wording, fixes or entirely new material added to the game.

Nobody is forced to purchase or use a new set of rules or a new version of an existing set of rules. If you like what you play, great! Generally I find after a few years I have "played out" a set of rules and welcome revisions.

The authors of version 3 have published their objectives in revising the rule set. If you agree with their objectives then it would make sense to try them. If you don't you might want to stick with v2 or try something else.

The authors are aware of the risks of revising a set of rules.

I tried ADLG playing about eight games. They didn't excite me at all. However other people enjoy them so great – they can do their thing and I will do mine.

Mortem et Gloriam rules have gone down the ring-binder route. This allows for pages to be revised and re-issued without having to reprint everything. The army lists are in PDF form and will be reviewed regularly. A forum encourages players to contribute to the army lists adding to the community in playing the rules.

I was looking at the Mortem et Gloriam website – a bit pricey but I kinda dig the mixing of quality 'euro' components with the rules.

Re: the OP, I don't think most folk have a problem with reprints – correcting errata or making language clearer. But when design decisions are rethunk, it seems like a slippery slope that tends to fragment the player base.

I'm trying to think of a rule set that went through the most versions…Best I can come up with is: WRG Ancients. When I picked up the rules, they just released version 7, then it went to version 7.5 for a time, and then changed into Warrior. So that's 9 versions (?)

Any others anyone can think of?

Warhammer has quite a few editions but they've also been perpetually in print for a long time.

Some games change in-between printings too, without announcing anything, making it hard to track.

DBM has had ten versions. Original (1993), then 1.1 (1994), 1.2 (1995), 1.3 (1996), 2.0 (1997), 2.1 (1998), 3.0 (2000), 3.1 (2005), 3.2 (2011) and 3.3 (2015). The last three have been downloads and 1.2 and 2.1 were amendment sheets, not new printed books, so only five books.

Hey John, is there a PDF for DBM 3.3 or should i just download the changes you have listed on your site and reference them?

I'm afraid not – you need to incorporate the 3.3 changes from my site. I hoped that Phil Barker would update 3.2 to 3.3 on the WRG site, but he hasn't responded.

"Perfect" isn't the goal. Satisfying should be good enough. But I do appreciate the approach of "new" (and shiney). I've designed many rules sets over the years, simply because ideas are fun to pursue. But the complete set should be allowed to stand alone. Further editions are only varied approaches for the fun of it.

Our ancmed and air wargame rules have not changed in over forty years. Other than discovered mistakes or minor details pointed out, the rules have stayed as-is……….