Gangs of Rome

[Mad Doc Morris]

One would almost think there was a counter productive campaign occurring.

We shouldn't easily assume a hidden agenda behind any kind of critical response. In this case it's perhaps rather due to a weak marketing strategy. We've seen a couple of painted miniatures so far. But "the scant information" mainly focussed on the rules and basically made it appear like a collectible card game.
That approach of selling a 'system' doesn't appeal to a lot of people, historical wargamers in particular, here and elsewhere. Sure, we may all be proven wrong by the actual product. But the (rather negative) perception of "Gangs of Rome" here to this point is based on the publisher's choice of preview content.

If you need a dose of (genuine?) enthusiasm, check out Beasts of War on Youtube, their discussion starting here.

[Sir Barnaby Hammond-Rye]

Have to totally agree with your comments. I have been amazed at the negativity appearing on this topic with the scant information prior to release. One would almost think there was a counter productive campaign occurring.

I agree. It seems mostly to stem from some people getting their collective noses bent out of shape "because we were here first" or similar. Shameful behavior, really.

Myself, I would probably use my own rules for any given period. Or rather the same rules I've always used for that period. So the game itself will be a mere curiosity. I like the idea of coins. The only drawback is that end of game you would want to make sure people didn't walk off with them by accident or get lost on the carpet or in some other clutter - especially as they probably cost a bit.

The figures however are of real interest. I especially like the youths and all the vignettes shown on facebook. Thought the latter are from someones personal collection I'm sure.

I'm also interested in whether there may be any scenarios included in the game. If the game includes inventive rules for generating scenarios I'd definitively be interested, even if I used other rules to fight it out.

[Furt]

I think everyone agrees that the GoR rules do sound quite different from anything we are used to and at first, I thought it stunk of a money making scheme as well, but I now believe that this is merely an innovative game mechanic to spice things up.
No doubt gang warfare in Rome could already be done with a dozen commercially published rulesets but GoR seems to be trying something different and I don't think we should tear them down because of it. Before we go putting the cart before the horse and expel GoR, we should probably wait and see what it plays like when the rules are actually released and if the coins and card stats really do matter all that much.
I had my own conceptions of what a Roman gang game would be like and I admit they were different from what GoR are outlining, but what is stopping us from still doing what WE want to do, as those on LAF have always done. I don't think anyone is going to argue that the potential for the minis and terrain being produced for GoR will not be useful and welcomed for this genre.
I have already asked Footsore if the minis will be available to purchase without the coins, cards etc in a "traditional" manner and they were not dismissive at all, answering that it would be something they would certainly consider in the future.
What I'm trying to say is, it's not the spirit of LAF to shoot down anything, so lets give GoR a fair chance and embrace the prospect of some beautifully sculpted miniatures, in the least.

[arget8]

I read this thread and I thought for a second that TMP had gotten a face-lift. Gentlemen, let's not get negative before we know anything. My interpretation of the game is not at all seeing it as a money grab or cashing in on the ideas of others. I agree that the designers could have been a little clearer on the way the coins would work, but I don't think that they are going with some sort of collectible nonsense at all. I have a feeling that a lot of the negativity could be due to the relationship that the designers have with a certain company, which is a little silly to be honest. One or more of the designers work for the company in a non-miniature related role and are not privy to business practices that we as gamers seem to despise.

Let's see the rules and minis before we get too judgmental, eh?

[Littlearmies]

And – as many other companies do – they believe (right or wrong) that the minis will sell better it they have a ruleset embedded with them. Which may be true, it's true for some other ranges...
...but I'm always bewildered when people say that they are "painting an army for [insert rule name here] ruleset"
...I believe than when you paint an army it's because you want to have and to play this army; so you will be able to use it and play it with any ruleset. But that's just me...

Well Warlord and 'Black Powder' or Battlefront and 'Flames of War' would be the obvious candidates for figure makers and rules linking but many wargamers paint an army for a particular ruleset - unfortunately there isn't a standard basing system once you move above skirmish gaming and the ubiquitous penny - so my Napoleonics are based for General de Brigade because that is the ruleset I like but the figures have no link to the rules per se. But if you are talking about gamers only buying Battlefront figures to play FoW then I agree.

We do seem to be going down a road where companies seek to provide a 'one stop shop' supplying rules, terrain and figures for a game. Perhaps this is because of a general move to small skirmish games based on a period of history or genre like zombies rather than the old style massed battles - which gives a company more of an opportunity to 'package' the whole thing. Of course many of us see newcomers coming to FoW and hope that they will move onto other periods etc but I sometimes wonder how many actually do so. I'm not a fan of 'one stop shop' game systems - and I suspect most people in this forum would prefer to go 'a la carte' on a project rather than go with a 'set menu' from one producer. But I'm not going to condemn someone who does in the slightest.

[Antonio J Carrasco]

Littlearmies

I can't speak for other people, but myself moved on to skirmish games because I am one of those wargamers that are interested in so many different periods that collecting armies for big battles for each one of them would be ruinous for my economy, and I would need several lifetimes just to paint -imagine to actually game with!- my armies! Skirmish games are my methadone. My only criticism is that with some exceptions -Sharp Practice comes to mind- most of them feel very generic, and that the period small units tactics are not embedded in the mechanics of the game. In other words, you can use the same ruleset either to play in America's wilderness in 18th Century or in the the streets of Hue during the Tet Offensive. They are fun, though, and at this point in my life I take fun over historical purity everytime!

'One stop shop' games have the benefit of saving time and, ocassionally, even money. Prepackaged units avoid the pitfall that faces every wargamer: if I need 8 figure units and the blister come with 6 figures, what use can I give to the 4 remaining miniatures? However, while I understand the reason why 'one stop shop' is popular, I am with you that I prefer 'a la carte' approach. After all, half the fun in this hobby is research and planning  a new project.

[Captain Blood]

I agree. It seems mostly to stem from some people getting their collective noses bent out of shape "because we were here first" or similar. Shameful behavior, really.

You won't leave this alone will you? Despite, our exchange on this a couple of weeks back...

What Captain Blood is arguing is that nobody should make a commercial product of any thing that some hobbyist, or group of hobbyists, have ever done on their own. Have I got that right?

There's really no need to get uptight about it. My opinion (just my opinion, which I'm allowed to express I'm sure you'd accept) is that this is an example of a company attempting to take ownership of an idea in order to productise it, become 'the official version' of that idea, and make money out of it. It happens all the time - yes. Does that make it ethical or okay? No. Not in my book. You may be happy with it. I'm not. Difference of opinion. Okay? 

Sure, sure, but I think it is just the name that is stirring this up, and really that is just an obvious nod the the movie "Gangs of New York", nothing more.

You now come back to the exact same point, this time denouncing the opinions of people contributing to this thread whose views you happen to disagree with (including me) as 'shameful behavior'.

Please, for the second time of asking, would you cut out the aggressive, accusatory language? There's absolutely no need for it. Everyone's entitled to express their opinion on a new product being promoted into our hobby, whether that's considered criticism or fulsome praise.
But please can we not flame other people's views because we happen to disagree with them.

[Nord]

You guys, form a gang each and meet up in the streets!

[Captain Blood]

Droll   

The serious point is that if there’s one thing this particular forum is known for, it’s a degree of courtesy and sense of proportion that isn’t always found elsewhere. We should aim to keep it that way 

[pocoloco]

I read this thread and I thought for a second that TMP had gotten a face-lift. Gentlemen, let's not get negative before we know anything. My interpretation of the game is not at all seeing it as a money grab or cashing in on the ideas of others. I agree that the designers could have been a little clearer on the way the coins would work, but I don't think that they are going with some sort of collectible nonsense at all. I have a feeling that a lot of the negativity could be due to the relationship that the designers have with a certain company, which is a little silly to be honest. One or more of the designers work for the company in a non-miniature related role and are not privy to business practices that we as gamers seem to despise.

Let's see the rules and minis before we get too judgmental, eh?

This. End of discussion.

[Mad Doc Morris]

This. End of discussion.

Nope. This is the end of discussion.

Methinks the debate requires a cool-down for all sides involved. This thread will be open again in a couple of days. In the meantime, please, everyone: relax.

EDIT: Okay, let's see how it goes. Thread re-opened.

[nervisfr]

Nope. This is the end of discussion.

Methinks the debate requires a cool-down for all sides involved. This thread will be open again in a couple of days. In the meantime, please, everyone: relax.

EDIT: Okay, let's see how it goes. Thread re-opened.

Yes !

More news from .........Warlord .



they get the job, i think 

http://articles.warlordgames.com/gangs-rome/?utm_source=Warlord+Games+Newsletter&utm_campaign=8f16c55d78-Warlord_Games_Wednesday_New_November_22nd_2017&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b7e928b4ed-8f16c55d78-132755365&mc_cid=8f16c55d78&mc_eid=126fb8342c

enjoy

 

[ichwillauch]

I don't know if this has mentioned before, but I am looking Forward for the sarissa colosseum and the ruins

http://www.beastsofwar.com/gangs-of-rome/footsore-previews-exclusive-building-sneak-peek/

[nervisfr]

wow,

the bill will be high .................for a skirmish game 

[levied troop]

Rather like the look of both these, despite swearing off new periods (yeah, I know  ).

I have a soft spot for civil unrest games and city terrain and this fits the bill.  The rules may or may not be useful but there’s several other options.