"Homesteader or Nomad?" Topic

In this discussion, the following tongue-in-cheek was made:

Well, Bolt Action is 40K and everybody plays Imperial Guard.

Of course, things aren't pithy and humorous unless they are somehow grounded in reality.

I would bet almost every wargame event (except microgames and some military TTX) uses a subset of the rules for the game. WH/WH40K is an easy example. No way any one event uses all the rules in all the books. But it applies in less extreme cases, too. Most WWII rules probably have snipers. Every WWII game played doesn't use snipers. And so on.

The above quote points toward one of my favorite sets of rules, Gangs of Mega City One. While I enjoy the Judge Dredd milieu and like to play games in it, if you get rid of all the future tech (some of which was future when published, but not any more), it is a very solid campaign framework for modern gang warfare. Without guns, it does a decent shot a ancient gang warfare.

Subsets of rules.

Given my hypotheses about subsets applies to most games you play, do you tend to play games that only use a specific subset of the rules, do you play different games that pretty much cover the entire scope of the rules, or do you play pretty much everything except one small area of the rules?

It's a little hard to answer this question with my primary ruleset (QILS), but I think I'm half-and-half. Half the time we focus on a core set of rules, but half the time we bring in other capabilities.

None of the above?
I don't have any one rules system which I play exclusively, nor do I really even pay much attention to whether any game has rules similar to or even derived from another game. I play a game because I like the theme and the rules and they are fun together. And two or more different games can share identical themes but different processes and I won't have a preference among them. If it works, it works.
Now, I'm more likely to prefer a game with what I consider to be less "fiddly" rules and details than a game with more fiddly details, but that's just my POV coming in. And scale and scope can be a factor as well— not just mini sizes, but also what level of command the game is trying to convey— individual, skirmish, mass tactical, strategic… each in my view are very different, and different approaches and games work better for the different levels.

In short, I play what's on the table, but I may prefer some approaches over others, sometimes exclusively, sometimes not.

I play our own rules as for me there is no competition; that having been said I have been seen playing DBM.
I play The Rules as a whole. However if game X has no tanks then some rules won't apply. But that's no different than if a scenario has no swamps, no swamp rules apply. Some rules get used less at some scales, rapid movement over 700 to 800m is not as likely on a board 700 long, but at say 1/144 with aboard 2400m long more likely but we never actively exclude rules, why would you do that?

QILS?

Anyway, no. If I'm playing published rules, I try to play them as they are. If I write my own, same thing. (I have been known to print out "game day" versions of my own rules, leaving out terrain types not on the board and such, to keep the rules as short as possible.)

Stripping down someone else's rules--as opposed to, say, not using all the troop or terrain types--is a tricky process. You want to be very sure you understand how different parts influence one another before you begin the surgery.

(I once took part in a professional Army-run wargame where someone "simplified" matters by disconnecting the logistics programming. The attack helicopters never ran out of fuel or ammo, and that's a day of my life I'll never get back.)

I usually play published rules as are, with an occasional mod if it strikes my gamer group's fancy. My own rules (Dead Run and Wolverines) started based on Force on Force, but lately some Bolt Action things have drifted in. Variety is the spice of life!

The fundamentals of a situation, gang conflcit as was suggested, dont change much so the rules that solve them are likely to work in their core regardless.

Others rules are beige enough that they are easy to adapt across multiple periods and they are well know so… warhammer FB…

Personally. I've borrowed ideas andnl concepts but now only play my own rules. Because I don't find a complete rulenset that scratches my specific itch.

Looking at my most-played rules, DBMM, I don't deliberately exclude stuff, but there are some parts that rarely or never come up. I've never played a game that involved a frontier wall, and few that included any sort of fortification other than a fortified camp.

Oh, and obviously, there are a great many army lists I've never used.

there are some parts that rarely or never come up.

That's what I was asking about.

Oh, and obviously, there are a great many army lists I've never used.

That follows with a distinction I try to make between "rules" that govern dynamics and "stats" that describe how individual entities (units) behave within the rules.

Since I was asking about rules, if you have rules for Infantry, Cavalry, and Artillery and you use units that have those types in it, with respect to utilizing rules, you use them all, regardless of which parts of the army list you use.

Queen's Infantry Last Scout? Got me stumped too…

There's often some bits that we leave out if the mechanics are too contrived, convoluted, and/or just seem misplaced.

link

Hmm, not a very memorable title, and it seems unlikely I'll be able to pull it out of the alphabet soup in the future too.