Dazed and Confused

Rules. One of the main driving forces of the hobby. The rules serve to animate your lovingly prepared figures: using a good set of rules which play easily and have an authentic feel is one of the great pleasures of miniatures wargaming.

I've been looking out for some new rules recently. Now, I'm proud to say I'm definitely not a wargames butterfly. I have my 2 periods, which I intend to stick with, and for me the pleasure is in knowing those 2 periods thoroughly, as well as bringing together a collection of figures and vehicles over time to which I have become quite attached. But that doesn't stop me looking out for new rules which might enhance my wargaming.

However, these days I'm finding the new rules thing a bit problematic. Not that there's any problem with choice. Indeed, I have seen some comments that the number of new rule sets is a bit bewildering, but this isn't my problem. Nor is there a problem with the rules themselves: it seems rules writers are brimming with ideas, and reviews of the new sets seem to indicate that plenty of fresh concepts are out there. My problem is finding a set of rules that are just that - a set of rules.

For example, I Ain't Been Shot Mum! version 3 has recently been released. Being a well known cheapskate I took the opportunity to pick up an old copy of version 2 (2005), for a couple of quid at my local show (Reveille II in Bristol). The book featured interesting and original ideas from those Lardie boys, although overall they were maybe not for me. But I find that, to use the rules, I need (yes, actually need) to buy a period specific supplement for important stuff like stats and card deck composition. So the IABSM rulebook isn't a set of rules, it's part of a set of rules. It's volume 1. I presume v.3 is the same.

I have also been looking at the new Battlegroup Kursk set. For an outstanding review, see here. As you'll see, it's 237 pages long, it's a modelling and painting guide, it's a 25 page history of the Kursk campaign, but... the rules only cover one year of one theatre of WW2. Want to play Poland 1939? You'll have to wait for (and pay for) the supplement. Might be out in a year or two.

Yes, I am a bit bewildered. We all know that more playable and generally simpler rules have been a notable development in wargaming for quite a while. 'Fast Play' is all over the cover of most recent sets. But paradoxically the rule books containing these simpler, fast play rules just keep getting bigger and bigger. A4 size, full colour, quite likely over 200 pages, but somehow incomplete. There's apparently just not enough room to include all you need for your period in these grand books. You'll just have to buy the supplement(s). Not to mention that using that encyclopedia-like tome at the wargames table might be bit inconvenient as well, especially if you're juggling the rulebook and the supplement whilst referring between them.

So there you are. Rules that are too much and yet not enough, at the same time. Marketing concepts seem to be getting in the way of a satisfactory product - getting in the way of utility, if you will. Maybe there are customers out there for someone who just wants to produce a rule set: minimum size, minimum fluff, maximum coverage. Customers for a rules author or a wargames company that can spell concise. But perhaps the profit margin just wouldn't be high enough. In fairness, I should add that my trawls around the interweb would indicate I'm in a minority on this. Most wargamers seem very happy with these recent rulebooks and intend to snap them up.

Funnily enough, if I ever did a third gaming period it would pobably be DBA, with a view to progressing to the 'Big Battle' variant. Ah, DBA... probably counts as Old School by now. A5 format, 52 closely typed pages covering 3500 years of history including army lists... Hmm. Perhaps that's going too far in the other direction. But make that an A4 format, a few more examples of play, and you're there. Fortunately for my bank account, I don't think I have the time to support 3 wargames periods.

And whilst I'm on the subject...
Battlegames continues to be the magazine for the thinking wargamer. On the subject of rules, columnist Neil Shuck suggested in issue 30 that maybe the way into a new period was to choose a set of rules that attracted you, and go from there. Let the rules decide. An interesting idea, I thought, but I wasn't sure I agreed. In issue 32, Mike Siggins helped me clarify my doubts by writing that he thought Saga was a good rule set, and the figures available were excellent, but having played a few games he had decided the Dark Ages was tactically a bit boring. Yes - to avoid disapointment, it's surely best to put the period first.

I believe that the way into a new period is by research - investigate the new period, get to know and understand it. That should be a pleasure in itself. Then check out the rules and figures afterwards.

Even if you're a butterfly, it's better to be an informed butterfly.