Help support TMP


"Featherstone Was Right" Topic


15 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Return to the Featherstone Was Right Poll



218 hits since 11 Oct 2017
©1994-2017 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

The Membership System will be closing for maintenance in 1 minutes. Please finish anything that will involve the membership system, including membership changes or posting of messages.

TunnelRat Supporting Member of TMP11 Oct 2017 11:09 p.m. PST

What is 'in the Featherstone Tradition?'

altfritz12 Oct 2017 1:58 a.m. PST

Non-tournament?

Personal logo Florida Tory Supporting Member of TMP12 Oct 2017 2:55 a.m. PST

Been gaming since the 1960s, have certainly heard of Donald Featherstone, but have no idea what is meant by the "Featherstone tradition".

advocate12 Oct 2017 4:36 a.m. PST

I too am unsure what the 'Featherstone tradition' is. If it is single based figures in large units with figure removal, then for me that is the past.
I got the impression from his books that he was open to a wide variety of games. If that is the 'tradition' referred to, then may it live long and prosper.

Personal logo Flashman14 Supporting Member of TMP12 Oct 2017 4:53 a.m. PST

Agreed. I don't adequately understand the question.

Winston Smith Supporting Member of TMP12 Oct 2017 5:43 a.m. PST

I've never played a game out of a Featherstone Book. So, what current games are in the "Featherstone Tradition"?
I'm surprised that so many are like me and puzzled by the question.

Personal logo x42brown Supporting Member of TMP12 Oct 2017 6:31 a.m. PST

I am as uncertain as those above and I've played in tournaments organized by him. To me it was more that he got isolated individuals and small groups together than a particular style.

x42

Rallynow Supporting Member of TMP12 Oct 2017 7:17 a.m. PST

Please explain to everyone what the "Featherstone Tradition". I have a couple books by him. But no clue what you mean.

VicCina Supporting Member of TMP12 Oct 2017 8:00 a.m. PST

I second what Rallynow said.

pvernon Supporting Member of TMP12 Oct 2017 8:44 a.m. PST

+2 for Rallynow

79thPA Supporting Member of TMP12 Oct 2017 9:48 a.m. PST

It was never clarified in the pre-poll discussion either.

Personal logo Narratio Supporting Member of TMP12 Oct 2017 6:55 p.m. PST

I gamed against Featherstone twice in the early 70's and he would play anything against anybody just for the joy of it. So for me his tradition is "Just have a go"

SeattleGamer13 Oct 2017 12:07 p.m. PST

In my eyes, the Featherstone Tradition means simple, vague rules, that do not cover even the majority of likely situations, for a game played between friends, who can simply come to an agreement when a situation arises.

Which is a GREAT attitude!

But even with my friends, I prefer a better, more detailed set of rules, that are likely to cover 90% of what might happen, and give you some indication of intent for the 10% not specifically covered by a section of rules.

If good fences make good neighbors, then better thought-out rules make for more/better gaming. I think Featherstone was more about "Just get playing" and less about "What happens when somebody gets flanked?"

KSmyth15 Oct 2017 10:27 a.m. PST

Yes, I agree with SeattleGamer, that the games I've looked at by Donald Featherstone have holes in them big enough to drive a bus through. That said, I also think there is a pretty major fun quotient included in the rules which under the right circumstances could really be great. If it doesn't matter who wins or loses and enjoying a great night of gaming with buddies does, there is definitely a place for Featherstone-like games.

Example--Knights Games had Featherstone write a scenario and rule set for fighting Poitiers 1356. I've had and lost this book several times over the past four decades. The rules look fun, but damned if I understand everything the old boy is after. I've never played his rules, but think it's simply cowardice on my part. Some day . . .

robert piepenbrink Supporting Member of TMP18 Oct 2017 2:20 p.m. PST

I'm still working on "better, more detailed set of rules" as though "better" and "more detailed" were related things.

I have not found those of Featherstone's rules which I have played to be insufficiently clear as a basis for play with friends who are using roughly historical tactics. If adding another 50 pages would spare me rules lawyers, I'd consider it--but on all evidence so far, the longer the set of rules, the more rules lawyers it attracts.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.