"Ruleset That Most Deserves a New Edition? (Round 3)" Topic

You know, "deserves" a new edition is an interesting concept. Presumably it's not the same as "needs" a new edition, which suggests there's something wrong with the old one. But how does it differ from "I'd like a reprint edition?"

I went with TSATF--a sturdy workhorse of a ruleset, a little hard to get at present--but I'm not sure what I'd want in a "new" edition.

I'm not sure either. But by your definition, it certainly "deserves" one.
I'll probably just take a little bit of this, a little bit if that.

Given all the fond memories and discussion of Chainmail I would say it deserves a new edition.

New edition? Or a reprint?

Chainmail would need a serious overhaul to make it useful to the average wargamer, a complete rewrite and modernization. It was always somewhat impenetrable and massively confusing and required a ton of house rules to play with.

You know Piper, that's a very good argument for a new edition. I wonder how messed up the copyright is?

But yet, I found it more penetrable than WRG 6th!

Twould be deserving of a big overhaul.

Ah, WRG Ancients.
I used to joke that whenever a print run would run dry, that "they" would publish a new edition. Even within the edition, so 5.3th edition.
I was accused of blatant heresy and lese majeste towards PB. 🙄
Sometimes "amendment sheets" were issued that would say things like "delete MUST", "insert CANNOT".
Yet WRG insisted that each new edition was the most heavily playtested rules ever written. Next week came the amendment sheet.

Then, each HMGS tournament had a "Thursday night rules seminar".
"I have a letter from Phil regarding Charge Responses!"
"What's the postmark date?"

Is there any wonder that I'm cynical about New Editions?
Particularly when a monetary advantage to the publisher is glaringly obvious? 🙄😄

I'm reluctant to buy any "new" editions, for reasons mentioned by John as well as another- sometimes the "new edition" is a whole new system. Two examples, one mini's and the other a board game- Johnny Reb III and Advanced Squad Leader. The former wants me to rebase my ACW figures, the latter to throw out most of the expansions and modules I'd bought. Not happening, sunshine.

Releasing new editions to screw out a few more quid from the punters, or releasing what's basically a new system under an old name really p[SNIP]s me off, so I'll stick to the editions I have- unless a game at a convention or the club shows that the new edition is actually better for play, not company profits.

Concerning Chainmail, my guess is that the copyright is firmly in the control of WOTC / Hasbro. Same as D&D and other ex-TSR products. And given their stewardship of "wargames" and from what I've heard about their management style from former employees, vintage stuff like Axis & Allies or Chainmail are simply not high priorities. They are not seen as big, flashy moneymakers.

Chainmail in particular -- it's historic, but at heart, it's a set of relatively sketchy miniatures rules for medieval battles with a (now famous) Fantasy supplement. It's extremely disorganized and incomplete/incomprehensible in places. So a reissue would require a substantial reworking and new additions to cover all the incomplete areas. How would this be done, who would do it, and how much would it cost? Does WOTC think this is a viable moneymaker in the end? No.

I've been in some "throwback" Dungeons & Dragons games at cons with former TSR staffers who made a point of attempting to use Chainmail as the combat system for resolving D&D melees -- as was the original intent of first edition D&D. And they all admit freely what a mess it is and how many compromises or new rules have had to be put in to make it work. My feeling is that even the straight medieval battles would require similar fixes.

People would buy a new edition out of curiosity but wouldn't play it unless it was up to snuff. And even then, is it gonna knock off Warhammer or any of these current faves?

Is WOTC interested in putting out new editions of Tricorn or Cavaliers & Roundheads or Tractics? Or, what was that massed Fantasy miniatures battles booklet, Swords & Spells, something like that? I had all those once upon a time. Nah!

I voted for both BattleSystem and Chainmail, but they will never be re-issued, alongside of D&D RPG rules…

D&D gamers have virtually no interest in miniatures wargames with hundreds of miniatures. RPG gamers have little interest in collecting pre-painted fantasy miniature figures, let alone figures they need to paint.

Fantasy wargaming became divorced from RPG games, at an early stage -- more non-wargamers became attracted to RPG games in the 1970's, and that trend of non-wargamers flocking to D&D RPG's continued. Those of us RPG'ers who enjoy fantasy wargames with miniatures are the super-minority of D&D's fan base.

Every fantasy wargames rules set TSR/WotC published, has largely failed in the market place: Swords & Spells (1976), 1e BattleSystem (1985), 2e BattleSystem (1989), the 3.5e Miniatures Handbook (2003), was the last attempt at a mass combat wargame rules set, I believe. Pretty much every one of these games, was a commercial failure.

TSR and WotC both tried, and both failed, to compete with GW's fantasy Warhammer games. They also tried the skirmish Chainmail Miniatures Game (2001), which used collectible, pre-painted figures, sold in boxes with random figure contents.

Miniatures gaming is dead at WotC/Hasbro, IMO. Too bad. The 2e BattleSystem game, by Doug Niles, is still a playable, fun game. It is a kitchen sink set of rules, which can use any type of figures, and that is one of the things I love about it. It is not an RPG game, it does not play like an RPG combat scenario. For those reasons, RPG players have little interest in it, along with little interest in collecting and painting armies of miniatures (100-1,000+, depending upon which armies they build, and how big they build them), building/collecting terrain, etc.

The RPG hobby has diverged away from tabletop wargaming, and few enthusiasts, today, cross over between the two, sadly. Cheers!

Excellent commentary, Sarge! You've filled in the gaps of my earlier post. And I agree with your perspective.

I still have a copy of BattleSystem by Doug Niles but I've never played it. It's hung on when other rules sets have been sold off due to the idea that there are good ideas in it that might be mined for my own home-brewed Massed Fantasy Miniatures rules set that I've been playing successfully since the mid-1980s. Very kitchen sink and Tolkienesque, my rules, the emphasis is on using whatever figures you've got and that units are more important than individuals, like a conventional pitched battle wargame, even allowing for the influence of generic fantasy individual champions like Wizards or Warriors, etc.

It has also been my recent experience that few RPG gamers have any experience with or interest in miniatures games -- altho' some of the more broad-minded could be tempted to dabble in something friendly and semi-familiar like a skirmish-level wargame (try to start with Dark Ages/Medieval/Fantasy) -- encourage this and then slowly move into grander themes!