"Rule set longevity" Topic

It seems every week, there's a new Napoleonic set of rules released…
That got me thinking about how long we tend to stick with a set of rules.

Some rules seem to endure for years—there's a strong nostalgia factor at play. Sets like 'The Sword and the Flame' still have a considerable loyal following and are spoken of with real affection.

At the same time, we also see bandwagons develop. A new set appears—say 'The Barons' War'—and suddenly lots of people seem to be playing it.There's a popular Wargames' Mag that rarely does not have an article using this rule set.

From my own experience, there's a point where a familiar ruleset can start to feel a bit… predictable? You know what works, what doesn't and how to get results. The challenge shifts from decision-making to applying what you already know.

That's not necessarily a bad thing but it does make me wonder about the appeal of new rules.

A new set can be refreshing:
Learning unfamiliar mechanics
experiencing different assumptions
and a need to rethink how you approach the game and the period.

In a way a new rule set restores a sense of uncertainty and perhaps even levels the playing field.

Of course, nostalgia plays its part too. Some rules just feel right, even if newer systems might do things differently.

So:
How long do you tend to stick with a ruleset?
Do familiar rules become predictable over time?
Is part of the appeal of new rules the challenge of learning them?
Or do you prefer to stick with one system and explore it fully?

Apologies if I've named anyone's favourite set—no offence meant!

I'm interested in thoughts from any period or level of play.

If you find a set that works, I don't see the need to change. Along those lines, new rules generally really don't appeal to me. I'm willing to try them out if someone runs a game, but I don't worry about buying new releases. To me, What a Tanker was appealing because no one was doing something like that and I am interested in WWII. Continuing my stream of consciousness, new rules have to be about something that I am interested in and also fill a void in current rule sets.

How long do you tend to stick with a ruleset?

I select rules based on the scenario I want to play. It's fit to the scenario, not some loyalty to rules.

Do familiar rules become predictable over time?

Why would you not want the rules to be predictable? How are you making decisions if you don't know what effect they will have based on the rules?

Is part of the appeal of new rules the challenge of learning them?

Why would you want rules that are challenging to learn? I want the challenge to come from the startegic, operational, and tactical situation presented, and the acumen of my oppoents and allies.

Or do you prefer to stick with one system and explore it fully?

I'm not sure what this is asking … What are we to be exploring?

I tend to play games from all across the time spectrum, from OGRE/GEV (newest version, but barely tweaked since 1977) to DBA second edition (3rd can carry on without me) to Barons' War even (decent skirmish rules with some tactical teeth), and various others along the whole time spectrum.

For those of us who do our gaming at the FLGS, playing newer games really helps their sales and is good for attracting players. For those who might sniff down their nose at new games, that won't help keep the stores (and their gaming space) in business.

I'm pretty much with Eto on this one: find a period and level which interests me, find rules which yield results I feel to be historical--or plausible for F&SF--without being overly complicated or otherwise annoying and let it go at that. (Mind you, I keep just in case any rules I'm willing to play which work with how my troops are based.) "New" is not a selling point for me when it comes to rules, or periods.

If the hot new rules are really new--period or scale--well, how much will it cost? How long will it take to have two armies with terrain? And where will I put it all? (There's also generally a reason I don't already have it.)

Worst thing a wargame magazine can do--and they seem to do it all the time these days--is run articles on how to create a particular army not covered by the rules in this week's hot new rule set. Only useful to people who like both the new rule set and the army. Weren't the editors ever taught not to draw to an inside straight?

Hmm. Possibly related. As I type, the table is set for the Second Battle of Rauchversuche. I'm running through my inventory of short simple rules for horse & musket compatible with my 28mm individually-based figures, looking for things missing and fine-tuning them using the same mechanisms as the original authors. Pretty much all the 7-12 sets are old enough to vote. And I think I'm much better off tweaking them than buying the base rules and army or period volumes for the hot new set which will require new books in five to ten years.

That's interesting— replies so far seem to lean toward sticking with what works, which makes a lot of sense given the investment in figures, basing, time, etc.

I do wonder, though, whether there's a point where a ruleset becomes less about decision-making and more about recognising patterns—almost like solving a puzzle once you've seen the solution.

In that sense, I'm not sure new rules are always about simply replacing old ones to stay current but perhaps also about restoring a bit of uncertainty or forcing you to think about the same period in a different way? I looked at my first Napoleonic set (ELAN – a WRG variant), loved but not played for a long, long time. I was surprised to notice how moribund they seemed (still lots of good memories though).

I do expect three camps to emerge from this discussion:
The Loyalists
"We've played X for 20 years".
This camp values depth, familiarity, house rules RP is in this camp.

The Explorers
Enjoy new systems, mechanics, ideas
MiniMo is in this camp

The Pragmatists
"We play what the group plays"
To a degree, I'm in this camp.

Which camp are you in?

I am open to new rules if the ones for the period of interest are too challenging/hard to play/unenjoyable

But I am also very happy to stick with what works – for example, The Sword and the Flame and Fire & Fury – which I have stuck with since they came out

But I also will go with the gang – hence when the group shifted to Valor & Fortitude from Black Powder I went along with them – although not for Ancients – sticking to Hail Caesar

Hmm. And I missed the question of rules longevity--the fact rather than the should.

There's room for lots of quibbling. (Define "death." Tell me at what point a new edition becomes a different set of rules under the same title.) But I think rules CAN live a very long time. You still see "Charge!" games at conventions at about 60. OGRE/GEV must be about 50. TSATF is past 45 now, I think, and DBA not much less.

But the "infant mortality" of rules is extremely high. Even the carefully-nurtured ones with hardcover editions and colored text on glossy paper are mostly gone within ten years, or so vastly changed in the new edition that the faithful must go out and buy fresh troops to play what is allegedly the same game. I'd say a full "natural" lifespan might be in the same range as a man's, but the median lifespan is under ten years and possibly more like five.

If you want your rules to have a long, happy life
1) avoid copyrighted, licensed subjects.
2) avoid unique components--card decks, custom dice or such.
3) don't require copyrighted figures.
4) either use individual basing, or have a standard frontage for units.

None of these guarantee longevity, of course. But they seriously reduce the chances that the rules can't be reprinted, or that interested parties will be unable to play the game ten years from now.

I have played Column, Line and Square since 1968 and amassed 10,000 figs to play it. Have played The Sword and the Flame since 1979. Played DBA and HOTT since 1991. Now, since 2017, I play Congo.

"If you want your rules to have a long, happy life
1) avoid copyrighted, licensed subjects.
2) avoid unique components--card decks, custom dice or such.
3) don't require copyrighted figures.
4) either use individual basing, or have a standard frontage for units."

Should someone tell this to GW?

As to Robert's point regarding cost and time to gear up, I am taking a calculated gamble on expending an existing collection to handle much bigger battles in the hopes that upcoming new rules will pan out well.

There are two new promising looking rules sets coming out this year for bigger Samurai battles than my current Test of Honour. That's currently a relatively open niche for 28mm figures and related table sizes. Existing rules that folks use do not speak to me.

I have more than ample terrain prepared already. Embarked on expanding the figure collection last summer when the Never Mind the Billhooks variant for Naginatas was announced and some playtest game reports posted. It looks to have enough flavour tweaks over the base rules to provide a suitably Sengoku Jidai flavoured game. It's in the Billhooks Redux book due out much later this year. I should have figures ready in time to give it a try.

Also due out earlier this summer is Osprey's Daimyo. This was designed from the ground up to reflect Sengoku style organisation and combat, and early playtesting reports look very promising.

Both use similar figure counts ~150 or so per side. The sabot bases I've picked up will work for either one. If it turns out neither rules really appeal to me in the end, then I'll still be happy having the figures and sabots on hand to keep panning for a better option, and will have quite the ample assortment of minis for running large Test of Honour events at conventions. (Test of Honour is a keeper, and I'll likely be playing that for a long time to come for smaller level skirmish games.)

So, it's a calculated risk.

Good point about "copyrighted figures".
That inevitably means that every 4 or less years they will be rendered redundant by the New Edition of the rules. Especially if it's something like "Forest Gobmins", which aren't even in the new Codex. So, in "official sanctioned" events they could be illegal.

There are no "official rules" for Rogers Rangers, Green Mountain Boys, Imperial Roman legions, Archbishopric of Münster, uThulwana Zulus, Iron Brigade…

The only "copyright issues" is the design and sculpt. But that has nothing to do with rules.

@ MiniMo
That's a great example of the "calculated risk" approach—expanding an existing collection in the hope that new rules will unlock something different.

It does seem to contrast nicely with the earlier point about sticking with what works. You're effectively investing ahead of the rules, rather than waiting for something proven.

I suppose that also ties into the idea of filling a gap. If existing rules don't quite capture what you're after, then trying something new becomes much more appealing.

There's no "right way" to game , of course, but speaking on a personal note, I really like your approach to rules.

I believe the term is "figure agnostic rules", John. A concept anathema to GW.

I first played The Sword and the Flame in 1983 at a show in Mississippi. It was a Boxer Rebellion scenario. He used Egg Gross crates for the city walls. Great time. We stayed friend until Larry died.
In the 1970s I played a number of TSR rules like Tricolor and Royalist and Roundhead. Also played Empire 2. Dunn Kampf in 1976.

I suppose that on a per rules-set basis, the typical time I stick with a set of rules is pretty low – there are a lot of sets I've played once to a handful of times and don't particularly expect to play again. But if you look at plays, most are of a much smaller number of games I've played dozens or hundreds of times, spread over decades.

"Should someone tell this to GW?"

No, ochoin. Because GW doesn't want or sell long-lived rules. GW sells relatively short-lived rules which it calls "editions." If they were actually updated rules, you wouldn't have to keep buying new figures, and you wouldn't have to sell off old ones now no longer allowed. And note that I wrote of median lifespan. Even if WH40K were a single rule set, you'd have to balance that off against the many, many others which died young.

I do wonder, though, whether there's a point where a ruleset becomes less about decision-making and more about recognising patterns—almost like solving a puzzle once you've seen the solution.

I will ask again, why are you looking for the challenge in the rules instead of the scenario and the players?

I believe the term is "figure agnostic rules",

If the rules support more than one type of unit, they are not figure agnostic. I suppose you could play 'this 1" gray cube is my conscript infantry, this identical 1" gray cube is my elite infantry, this identical 1" gray cuge is my grenadiers …'

you wouldn't have to keep buying new figures, and you wouldn't have to sell off old ones now no longer allowed

Following along the last idea, this is scoped as a general statement about GW and belies the reality behind it. What you are talking about only applies to sponsored games.

If GW is sponsoring a game they can specify which figures are or aren't used in the game. Just like if Joey Bagadonutz is sponsoring a game for pwalkups at the FLGS, Joey can decide wether or not your Napoleonorcs with different basing that the other players won't recognize by uniform and weapon are allowed in his Waterloo game.

GW has never made me buy a figure. GW has never made me sell a figure. I have a big lot of old figures:

inlgames.com/free-arch.htm

You should report me. When you do, call attention to these:

inlgames.com/harpoon.htm

They are on 25mm bases, and I believe GW uses 32mm bases for individual infantry now. (Thank God no other company has a rule set that "forces" you to rebase as well!). And they're smaller than the current crop, so in a TLoS system, they can hide behind things other current units under the same rules could not. And they have a non-existent weapon … which was great for the scenario we played two days ago.

I do have a question, though. If GW is forcing you to sell them and nobody (or the vast, massive, overwhelming majority of GW players in the vast, overwhelming majority of games) can use them … who is buying them? Why?

The Loyalists? The Explorers? The Pragmatists?

I am in all three camps.

Fair points, mostly, Eto. But we were discussing the longevity of rules, so the point here was not GW tournaments, but what troop types the various editions of the rules allow. When the "new edition" wipes out entire armies or equipment ranges--that is, they are no longer allowed under the rules--then as far as I'm concerned it's a new set. (Adding new troop types is more subtle: I'm letting that pass for now.)

Which means that, while there are always a few holdouts playing older editions--you can still find a few people playing by H. G. Wells' rules, after all--GW hasn't produced a long-lasting rules set, but a succession of shorter-lived ones.

Ocho, one more time. You're letting one company's admittedly extraordinary success outweigh the norm. I can certainly find you actors who show up late, forget lines, argue with directors and still have had long and successful careers. But that's not the behavior you would advise for a career as an actor. The companies operating under a license for rules tied to some book, movie or TV show mostly seem to lose the license within about five years. The ones inventing their own fantasy/SF world are usually available in flea markets about that fast, miniatures and rules both. (Star Fleet Battles is the conspicuous exception for licensing. Maybe Flintloque for invented history?) But rules requiring only historical or common SF/fantasy troop types, measuring tapes, dice you can buy in any game shop or a deck of playing cards can endure a very long time.

so the point here was not GW tournaments,

That was my point. The GW critique was limited to a narrow slice of sponsored events. And that everyone who does sponsored events does the same thing.

When the "new edition" wipes out entire armies

How often does GW do that? SOM plays, 15 years or so now. He hasn't had entire armies wiped out. Looking through the stuff at a conservative ~400 data sheets with a liberal ~20 removed, thats ~5% change. Which can accumulate over decades.

But you would need a specific very focused single force to be "wiped out" by that. Which is what WH40K players tell me … GW targets "borken" and "cheese" that unbalances the game. My understanding is that most of what they do is reducing overkill on existing units. Low elimination, high volatility of performance.

If a game designer suddently decided that Napoleon's Imperial Guard weren't actually better than other similarly composed units, and it was N's strategy of holding them in reserve then sending them in fresh for an overkill blow on a critical objective that accounted for their battle record, they would probably lose their "+2". Which would then stop players from sending them in earlier than history shows … or at least not getting a +2 when they do.

Which means that, while there are always a few holdouts

Again, I don't know how we know how many people are playing what. At the FLGS, they probably favor table time for people who are buying models, paints, and books from them over people who bought one set 20 years ago. But that's not GW (or whatever company's game is hot now and will be gone in five years)… that's your FLGS who pays rent (probably), maintenance, utilities, and staff to have game tables.

I prefer that they do things that keep them open.

The very first game of The Sword and the Flame was a tournament game. 😄
Remember when they used to MAIL the PEL? 😱
One could take either *1* unit of 20 British, or *2* units of 20 Zulus. I took Zulus, and won when the British slaughtered each other. That's called Diplomacy.
I think I won a "Best painted army" or something afterwards. A Black gamer came up to me and gushed all over the figures. Minifigs, which pre-dated Ral Partha, by the way. I was hoping he would not ask me what paint I used for the flesh. It was Armoury Nubian Flesh, with a wash of Ogre Dark Brown by Pactra. I miss both lines. Good paints.

Here's how I crawl back on topic, sort of. The Minifigs were exact copies of the first (of many!) Ospreys on the Zulu wars. Would that be considered a "copyright violation"? Or was there already a precedent for that practice?

Anyway, TSATF never had requirements for specific manufacturers. I've played, in its early days, with Hinchliffe, Minifigs, Ral Partha, Iron Brigade, Garrison… And later with Old Glory, Foundry…

As for TSATF, I've played since it first came out, through the updated and improved 20th anniversary edition and will in all likelihood get the 45th anniversary edition, if and when it ever comes out. 🙄

Our club has played Age of Reason for 15mm SYW for decades. But for 25/28mm, I'm looking at Der Alte Fritz's one page rules. Just to change things around.

I have this strange idea, which nobody else seems to agree with, that players not being 100% familiar with the rules is a Good Thing. Look at how long it took the Union and Confederate armies to figure out the rules? And some never caught on at all! 😄

Investing ahead of rules that look like they have potential also comes with a potential payout. If I can host some trial games at the FLGS when the rules do hit the shelves, that increases the odds of attracting potential players.

I should definitely be ready by the time Billhooks Redux comes out late in the year, and may even be ready by the time Daimyo gets across the ocean this summer (Osprey has terrible international distribution and long time lags to get games in the store, where I would rather purchase it than Amazon which gets hold of them immediately, grr).

I do have a question, though. If GW is forcing you to sell them and nobody (or the vast, massive, overwhelming majority of GW players in the vast, overwhelming majority of games) can use them … who is buying them? Why?

Here we go again. NOBODY is "forcing" anyone to sell their figures. As a consenting adult in the privacy of your own home, do what you want. You seem so proud of using the "wrong" basing. Go for it.
For the record, I liked Old Glory Orcs much better than GW. I liked Kev's goblins much better too. But I never played at an "official sanctioned game", neither at a store that had that requirement, nor in a tournament.
If I wished to play in an "official sanctioned game" in an event, those figures would have been disqualified. But I never did. 🤷
And I sold them off when I got bored on eBay, or flea markets. To people who knew exactly what they were, and wanted Orcs and goblins. They were basement gamers too.

Notice that Flames of War tried, once and for a very brief period, to enforce using their figures in "official sanctioned" events. They were laughed out of the conversation. You can copyright an Ultramarine Apothecary, but a Sherman Easy 8? A Tiger I?

When I "broke into" the hobby in the late 70s, it was with WRG Ancients. There was a table of positive factors, and negative factors. You added them up, rolled the dice, and removed figures, or kept a roster.
There were many similar rules, like 1776 for AWI. They still work fine today, but rules evolve. Some got more complex, like the hideous "Newbury Fast Play" (I still think that title is a joke), or got simpler.

Another factor is how long the publisher can afford to keep them in stock. How many print runs? I had a conspiracy theory that WRG brought out new "editions" when the print run ran out. Thus "forcing" 🙄people to buy the latest edition. Competitive tournament players WERE "forced" to buy the latest edition, along with the amendment sheets, to keep up with the Jones's. But if you were a consulting adult in the privacy of your own home, that was certainly not necessary.
New figures were not required, but sometimes rebasing was needed. But only if you were competing.

I'm with Etotheipi.

I stick with rules I like.

DBA since 1st edition… now on 3rd… though…more soon.
Volley & Bayonet… I use it for all Horse & Musket
Rapid Fire! Though I use some from the newest version.
Modern Spearhead…

None of these are new.

Joe Collins

Tell it to the Squat players, Eto. Or to the Harlequins, where they kept the name, but altered the equipment lists so drastically as to consign existing armies to the flea markets.

Let's see. 15 years. That's Warhammer 40K's 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th Editions, with the 11th due out in June. Most of the bad blood on them seems to be over the replacement of the Firstborn Space Marines. Over in straight 40K, the whole thing was abandoned and replaced by four editions of Age of Sigmar--some of the same castings, but different basing. Then Warhammer came back. "Long-lived" is not the term I would use to describe such rules.

Tell it to the Squat players, Eto. Or to the Harlequins,

Well, if you can identify all those people, they should really talk to the people getting medals at and winning WH40K tournaments with Harlequins.

metanicus.com
stat-check.com/the-meta

That's where you'll get good advice on them. I am pretty much the last person to tell people what to field in a GW sponsored WH40K event.

However, if they still want to sell them for <$1 per infantry, I'll happily buy them.

So, you have some one-off examples for models and army lists. What about rules?

" "Long-lived" is not the term I would use to describe such rules."

I would. "Editions" don't mean a completely new game.

You feel free to think otherwise but it might be constructive if a dedicated WH40K player weighed in with an educated pronouncement.

If I like the rules then I keep using them, as others have said. Rarely do I find a new set that replaces, sometimes suplements, a long-used set. It's not about "knowing a rhythm", getting an advantage or "Luddism". It's just that all the variables (figure:man ratio, combat system, movement, C&C, etc) seem to work together, so I enjoy the system and I think the game plays reasonably "historically realistically".

As for new editions being new rules or not, to me it depends upon how big the differences are. If they can be listed on a couple of A4 pages, then errata should be issued, not a new edition. If they are too great to be simply errata, then they're new rules.

But that's just my opinion, and not worth arguing about.

As for new editions being new rules or not, to me it depends upon how big the differences are. If they can be listed on a couple of A4 pages, then errata should be issued, not a new edition. If they are too great to be simply errata, then they're new rules.

But that's just my opinion, and not worth arguing about.

Arguing? No. But discussing, absolutely.

I think the starting point is what "rules" are. Just like everything that is in book with the word "doctrine" on the cover is not necessarily doctrine, everything in a "rulebook" isn't necessarily rules.

To your point about a couple A4 pages, it it's 20 pages of army lists (parameters and statstics for individual units vice specific governance on how the wargame works), I would count that as zero rules changes.

I would probably also weight it by how "core" the rule changes. If it is changes to rules used by most people for most parts of the game in most scenarios, I would count it as a "bigger" rule change than a one-line change to a capability used by one side, typically once per game.