"Is It Our Fault?" Topic

Mostly. Remember there is a financial incentive for the author in new editions, and for franchise rules, there are new army lists to go with them, and so even greater incentives.

But even there, we are enablers by putting up with such things.

Never asked a designer to change anything. Happy to house rule if necessary.

+1

Rick

We found that V4 of Flames if War was unnecessary and too simplified. So we stuck with playing V3.
Apparently, ours isn't the only group.
So yeah. We're at fault. But then , I think that Battlefront is at fault.

Some rules get more complex with each edition, some get simpler, and some move sideways. I expect the blame for this, if any is to be assigned, mostly falls on designers' idiosyncrasies.

Depends on what you're look for. The latest release on Rapid Fire has been trimmed down from book to pamphlet and I'm really looking forward to the new TSATF release.

In both cases the rules are not bloated to increase the bottom line.

Bottom line: If "we" didn't acquire the last ruleset there wouldn't be any resources to fund the next. This has lag in the feedback a la the Peter Principle.

Depends I think – Games Workshop has certainly cycled thru enough 40K rules, although maybe not in response to gamer requests; on the other hand my old ACW stalwart Fire & Fury came out in 1990 and has exactly one new edition in 2010

It is very easy to publish and to publicise rules these days. That has had an effect, I think. Broadly it is good that there is so much diversity.

The idea of 'fault' seems negative, as if diversity and renewal are bad things.

Phil

I'll admit the very word "diversity" leaves me a little twitchy these days, Phil, and "renewal" not much better. But I'm not sure we're really getting either one.

Note we're not talking here about creating new rules, but replacing old editions. Pulling Edition 3 and issuing Edition 4 doesn't give me greater diversity. I have no more choices--just different ones. As for "renewal" that suggests the previous editions had somehow aged out. This feels more like "new improved" laundry detergent--except that in this case we have to buy new parts for the washing machine, if not a whole new machine. So yes, "fault."

And, really, in a cooperative hobby there's a point of diminishing returns for real diversity. I'd say the peak point is one with an in-print set of rules acceptable to each wargamer interested in a given period, and I do mean "acceptable to" not "ideal for." Every additional set of rules diminishes the chances of finding another wargamer familiar with and willing to play the same rules. The best really is the enemy of the good in this context.

(We could get around this with short rules quickly scanned and played, suitable for friendly games only, but that are the odds?)

I am not looking for some pseudo-governmental solution, but I think it's hard to deny that we've dug ourselves into a fair-size hole.

It's a version of "Too Many Cooks" in a way in many rules case: So many people find so many issues (Real or imagined)and give feedback, then editors fit those into rules and sometimes, the slightest change can tip over a rules set from simple to complex, due to interactions of rule mechanics with each other.

Sometimes, it's the author's fault – In order to distinguish one rule edition from another, they add in new ideas they had later and try to shoehorn them in. Same issue as above though. Or you see a company trying to divorce itself from previous company's working rules if they buy up or acquire a property ( No, not getting at W**cr*dle at all :p) or try and redo a previous edition in order to bring in new minis or just force players to change product (Yes, getting at G**** W***shop at all).

Why is anyone at fault? It's up to each gamer to decide if they want to open their wallets or use the changes, isn't it?

True, Dal. It is and should be our individual choices. But it's worth remembering that in a commercial industrial society our choices affect one another's. I can't buy a low-acceleration, high fuel efficiency car because so many American car buyers won't make that trade-off. And I--by and large--can't buy 15's or 25's because other gamers keep grabbing the slightly larger shiny. And if enough of us follow the franchise people into new editions and army lists, the rest of us are stuck.

Still using our amended WRG -- Musket and ball and ancient rules since the 1970s.
See no point in chasing rules all over the map?

Russ Dunaway

We could get around this with short rules quickly scanned and played,

link

and free. And not just for friendly games, I've been asked to design tournaments and run professional wargames with it, too.

But, they're just another drop in the bucket.

We use two sets of free rules for AWI and battalion level Napoleonics. Over the years we have modified them to our tastes. Never considered using a published set of rules.

New does not always mean improved. We played JR2 for nearly ten years. We did not like the basing or the complicated charge sequence. But there was enough there that we liked that we modified the basing and used them.

For some reasoned we assumed that the basing would be fixed and the charges would be simplified in upcoming new 3rd edition. We got our copies of JR3 and were we disappointed. John kind of took the rules sideways and backwards at the same time. He went from 1:20 to 1:50, which we could only assumed was to compete with F&F (which he did not need to do).

He took everything we liked about the rules and changed it and made them less appealing. Worst he didn't fix the rules we did not like.

We just kept using our modified JR2. Then I moved to another town and they used JR2 exactly as it was written. I had to adapt. Eventually they even became fed up with them and we had to find another set of ACW regimental rules.

It is not our fault. Don't blame the consumer. Don't blame the customer. If a person buys a car and it has some major design flaws, do you blame the customer? No, the fault lies with the manufacturer for a poor design. Car makers use to design cars that would begin to have issues after a certain period so the consumer would buy another car. Is the consumer at fault for buying another car for them? No, it is clearly the fault of the car maker.

Doesn't the new edition thing really affects tournament play and not so much other gaming? We have a player in town that wanted to sign up for a regional BA tournament. He was the type of guy that never would by a new edition of a game. He still uses first edition AOE. Refused to buy the second edition of BA. Then he realized that the tournament required BA2. Guess what? We are now all playing BA2.