 Editor in Chief Bill   | 24 Oct 2025 10:32 a.m. PST |
You were asked – TMP link I've played and still play 60+ year old rules if they're suitable to troops and period, and I don't have any problem with them. But I've seen wargamers reject 10-15-year-old rules as hopelessly old-fashioned. Do rules have a "natural" or "normal" lifespan? Is there a period after which they become "vintage" instead of just "tested?" And does this vary with type of combat (land, sea, air) or type of play (tournament, club small circle of friends)? 78% said "no, rules do not have a natural lifespan"
16% said "yes, rules have a natural lifespan" |
 John the OFM  | 24 Oct 2025 11:25 a.m. PST |
SOME rules, naming no names (🙄) deserve a very short lifespan. Other rules (Cent Anni! (Consult your Italian friends. 🇮🇹 👍)) should go on forever. Besides the obvious ones with powerhouse publishers, like Risk and Stratego, some are just that darn good. Like The Sword and the Flame. It sometimes seems that "natural lifespan" means that the authors can't afford to keep them in print. Or, the evil bloodsucking capitalist imperialist publisher (again, naming no names 🙄) thinks it's about time to bring out a brand new "revision" to rake in more ill gotten loot, and shame those who are happy with the previous editions. Not that I have any strong opinions about this. |
| Editor in Chief Bill | 24 Oct 2025 12:35 p.m. PST |
Perhaps some rules mechanisms age poorly? We don't use spring-loaded cannons any more to fire projectiles at our lined-up soldiers. I hate rules that reward you for guessing distances correctly. |
 miniMo | 24 Oct 2025 2:32 p.m. PST |
Some rules die an untimely death.
Some rules die a deserved death.
Some rules just keep soldiering on! |
| pfmodel | 24 Oct 2025 11:24 p.m. PST |
There has been a general development of game systems since the 1960's. While you could say this could represents fashion rather than any real evolution, but there are a lot of older ideas which are no longer used. The classic example is reaction tests for almost all possible events; this has generally been replaced by command points. This is interesting because reaction testing was often used to replace written orders. Other changes are the move from simultaneous turn systems to sequential turn sequences and the move to higher scales. A good way to see that is to compare the old WRG ancient's rules all the way from WRG v1 up to the latest version of DBMM. Some may say that ADLG is a continuation of that evolution, or perhaps a evolutionary branch. Its harder to see this in Napoleonic's and WW2 rules, because both are a lot more fragmented, but if we look at the US only, then looking at Empire 3rd edition, napoleon at war and BBB is a good example of an evolution of game systems. |
| Martin Rapier | 24 Oct 2025 11:39 p.m. PST |
"We don't use spring-loaded cannons any more to fire projectiles at our lined-up soldiers." Cough. We still do. In fact we played a large naval game yesterday where gunnery was resolved using Britain's 25pdrs firing matchsticks at ship silhouettes…. |
| Gamesman6 | 25 Oct 2025 4:47 a.m. PST |
I shoot a bow… It still works but has been "superseded" though in large part that starts because fashion dictates the
Bright shiny things is prefered. Rules are nk different. Personally I don't see any rule sets ancient or modern that id play as is. Older sets have good and still.workable ideas. I love Featherstones paper disks dropped over the table to represent where paratroopers land. Hear hear Martin. ☝🏻 "I hate rules that reward you for guessing distances correctly." Hmm why? Real life is all about guessing distances… unless you are equipped with a good range finder. Skill makes your guesses more accurate and so you should be rewarded… YMMV |
| Gamesman6 | 25 Oct 2025 4:49 a.m. PST |
Martin. My wargaming started with my airfix 1/32 napoleonics dad had painted. Some spring loaded 12lb cannon, which id like to get more of. And plasticine weigted matchsticks. And we fought battles on the living room floor. |
| miniMo | 25 Oct 2025 6:21 a.m. PST |
Gamesman6, people who are good at guessing ranges win the games largely based on that personal ability and nothing to do with the game tactics.
People who are not as good at that skill are handicapped before the game begins. It is not a fun game to play. |
| Gamesman6 | 25 Oct 2025 9:46 a.m. PST |
People who are not good at anything in the game will tend to lose… 🤷 a players who isnt good at tactics will lose even we can argue the unit in RL would be better. 🤔 Not being good at tactics, knowing the rules etc etc… handicap the player. Surely tactics and their use is a personal ability. And like any personal ability or the other factors mentioned will improve with practice. If a game isn't about, personal ability, it might well be snakes and ladders. Personally I'd rather have a player that was good at estimating distance than none who games the rules of measurement with a ruler before they make their move. YMMV |
martin goddard  | 25 Oct 2025 10:29 a.m. PST |
Guessing ranges is good fun for skirmish and individual shooters. If a whole unit overshoots or undershoots that would be odd. Such a happening would intimate whole unit incompetence at their chosen role. In a unit game, does guessing reflect the general telling the unit how far away the target is due to their inability to carry out their profession? If the guess represents many shooters then the method is also very odd. There are skills a game should reward. Battle plans and making the right gambles might be two of those skills. Guessing distances; probably not. I don't use range guessing but know many who do. martin |
| Gamesman6 | 25 Oct 2025 11:09 a.m. PST |
Hmm still depends IMO… many units would be opening attack at a range at the command. Im not advocating range estimation as tbe best solution ar all times? No…. but in a situation where the detail of range is that important the general opposite is measurement, which leads to whole other set of issues.
Again like other aspects of mechanics ir time and place. In another current thread, where theres consideration of perception rather than actuality. And where the optimal choice based on better information and understanding the mechanics of the system. How do we reflect bad choices or at least subconsciously optimal choices, especially compared rules vs reality. As I said I'd rather success failure be based on player skill or lack of, over how well the player games the rules. I also think that in many cases where thinga like range is involved, there are better ways to solve them rather than guess or measuring. |
