Why successive editions?

[Arlequín]

A significant part of the fun of me is recreating a unit or force, with all its bells and whistles, in miniature, for good or bad. A rule set, or its users, that encourages me to drop integral items/units that are 'useless', or 'cost too many points to be effective', has then moved out of 'historical' and into some other place. Generally speaking (although there are exceptions) this is "What are competition-based rules?" as they would say on 'Jeopardy!'.

Taking Bolt Action as my example... How does a British Infantry platoon bear any resemblance to its historical counterpart when you have chosen not to buy any of its three Bren Gun teams, because an additional three riflemen in each section gives more bang for your buck?

Obviously history is full of leaders who bent the rules, or used things in an unintended manner and where they are successful, we usually pin a medal on them. To expect wargamers not to do so is perhaps expecting too much and I can indeed see the sense in closing loopholes and the like where this goes a step too far for most players, hence new rule editions... but if they were play-tested enough in the first place, most of them should already have been closed.

The 'Death Star' mentioned in Vermis's post is a good one... oddly the Swiss and Lansknechts revolutionised war by doing just what players have done there and I have visions of Charles the Bold demanding that the rules be changed so they can't do that any more. 

That was not a criticism, but perhaps rules are updated and rewritten to plug the gaps that this type of player exploits.

Sorry, 'criticise' was the wrong word and was not aimed directly at you as such. 

[joroas]

That was not a criticism, but perhaps rules are updated and rewritten to plug the gaps that this type of player exploits.


Sorry, 'criticise' was the wrong word and was not aimed directly at you as such.  Smiley

No offence taken, I take it as a given that the vast majority of LAF gamers game for pleasure, not for the thrill of the kill.

[Argonor]

No offence taken, I take it as a given that the vast majority of LAF gamers game for pleasure, not for the thrill of the kill.

The thrill of the kill can hold much pleasure - it's the way it's handled that separates us from the 'competitive players' (I don't really like the way the term 'competitive' is used; the objective of every game is to win - it's when the objective of playing the game becomes 'winning' instead of 'having fun' that the chord snaps).

[Arlequín]

The thrill of the kill can hold much pleasure - it's the way it's handled that separates us from the 'competitive players' (I don't really like the way the term 'competitive' is used; the objective of every game is to win - it's when the objective of playing the game becomes 'winning' instead of 'having fun' that the chord snaps).

Indeed, who doesn't like winning? I will take losing (and frequently do), but having enjoyed the game, as an alternative if I must though, but that is as far as I will go down that road.



 

[Archie]

Indeed I always play to win but its a game so I must be having fun whilst trying to annihilate my lovelyopponent (s).

What I dont like about multiple editions or even expansions is feeling the need to buy the rules to protect myself from rule focused people. In 40k I think you can orobably legally take units that my refular troops cannot scratch ... assuming you have Escalationa and have shelled out for a Baneblade.

I dont mind losing because I was outplayed but I dont like losing because I was out bought.

[Argonor]

I dont mind losing because I was outplayed but I dont like losing because I was out bought.

That is a big problem with most 'tournament'-oriented games with lots of granularity; it's virtually Magic the Gathering with miniatures, and your tactics are less important that your army composition.

Which is one of the primary reasons I don't play those games, but LOVE games like SAGA, where every army is composed of the same types of troops (with a few flavoured exceptions), but you have huge levels of freedom to choose the exact composition according to your preferred style of play, without breaking the game balance.

I don't think I'll be buying new editions of, for instance, SAGA, as I'm happy with the way it works, but I'll probably buy most supplements, as I like to have a lot of different flavoured options. If I were playing a tournament-oriented game regularily - and especially if I were attending tournanments, I would probably also feel forced to 'get updated' - but I've simply chosen not to, because I don't like the style of gaming that evolve from this type of games, and I only ever play 'friendly' games - most often some for which I provide both sides (I am housing an event this very weekend for which I provide about 10 games with minis, boards and terrain, and one of the attendees is bringing another 2).

[grant]

Mo' editions, mo' money, mo' problems.

Word.