"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? 🙄😄