Dardenell County

[Westbury]

Oh yeah, which rules won 

Final choice was very retro, went for the the Skirmish Wargames Group, Old West Skirmish Rules. Despite opinions to the contrary, they don't play any slower than any other sets really, there is less of the extreme randomness other sets give, I don't really like cards and, importantly, they have a sense of realism which most other sets lack.

I recognise that there is a large following for sets like, FFoL, Dead Mans Hand, Gunfighters Ball, etc but on this occasion old school won   

[CapnJim]

Very good then.  Carry on, lad!

[Blackwolf]

Excellent little town,sounds like a brilliant game too

[FifteensAway]

Just did a google check and if I found the right rules - at 226 pages! - no freaking way on green, brown, or purple earth, demon or deity in charge.  Quick and simple for my tastes - which means FFOL but probably the Bigger Battles variation.  But to each their own.

[Westbury]

Fifteens.
Just checked my copy, 54 pages, and that includes the extra's for horses, counting coup, smashing windows, etc. Have you looked at some kind of compendium edition?

[NickNascati]

I’d also recommend Fistful of Lead.  It works great for 5 to 10 figures per player.  I feel like using cards fits the old west theme.

[FifteensAway]

Probably not the right rules then.

I get not liking cards, they can interfere with the visual element of a game - which matters to me a lot - but FFOL just seems to work better than other games and people like to play them. 

I do have a pet peeve with them, however, and that is so many games are multi-sided free-for-alls - which really isn't a rule problem but a game master problem.  I get it, just a fun game.  But very little if any grounding in history.  I'd much rather see games - and plan to run such - where the multiple players are on one side or the other, as in only two sides, and heavily penalized for shooting at their own side (but legitimate mix ups should be allowed as long as there are still consequences).  I actually think such games can be just as much fun and ultimately a lot more satisfying experience.

Doesn't have to be strictly historical - that would be very limiting given how few real gun fights and gun battles there actually were in a relative sense.  And can absolutely go the Lark-Side and take something broadly historical and add in fun, even silly elements.  (Lark-Side is my 'word' for such games, as opposed to the Dark Side.). The Lark-Side lends itself well to what is probably a major inspiration for many of us - movies.  Also, the Lark-Side doesn't mean going nuts with the rules, the game is still pretty straight forward but elements added to keep it from being taken too seriously, like say having a sheriff by the name of Quiet Burp, that sort of harmless silliness.  One of my ultimate goals is to recreate Hallelujah Trail (which does provide an excuse for too many sides in a game!  ). 

Heck, to that end, I just primed up yesterday an Oracle Jones base with the gentleman laid out on a table with one whiskey bottle on its side and another waiting to be drained with a couple of others seated nearby, probably Clayton Howell and maybe Rafe Pike.  Also primed up a 'unit' of temperance marchers and three units of the Denver Free Militia.  Hard to find the right figure for Cora Templeton Massingale in 15 mm, darn it!  I don't have a cavalry band but I do have a couple of Civil War bands I can press into service, plenty of cavalry though and a fort and various and sundry denizens.

"Ah, now I see it!"  Oracle is probably my favorite Donald Pleasance role.   Now, back to 'work' - more units to prime!

[Furt]

I can recommend Ruthless - for a free set of fast play rules that is 2 pages in total.

http://www.fireballforward.com/ruthless.html

[Westbury]

If it's just the fun/playing with toy soldiers element you are wanting then FFOL does the job admirably - some of the guys we game with on an occasional basis love them and that's fine but the complete randomness of it all and the 'bang you're dead' side of it can grate after a while.

Cards generally and umpteen markers absolutely spoil the visuals, Dead Man's Hand is an ok game but the visuals is pants due to the cards and markers.
 
A grounding in history is my start point and if a game gives a sense of , 'yeah, that seems about right' then I'm on board, it doesn't have to especially complicated.

[CapnJim]

I'm another vote for FfoL or FfoL:BB.  We've used them for several genres, and we like them.  And we don't put our cards on the playing field.  Not big fans of much clutter, either.

As for historocity, They work for us.  It's the feel and outcomes by which we judge rules, and in our experience, FfoL can be suited to fit nigh about anything...

[thebinmann]

Very nice!

What is the mat you use? Size and material? Cheers

[Westbury]

We've got several but usually a Geek Villain fleece one.

[Grumpy Gnome]

Great looking games andcitvsounds like much fungal been had!

[terrement]

A question for this but also for other rules vs rules comparisons.

How do you account for the differences in dice rolls in different games?  In game A, Evil Roy Slade rolls 2D6 and gets 9 for movement and gets to cover while in game B his 2D6 is only 3 which would leave him in the open.  If you do the same move, he could well get shot down.  If you move him differently, it is no longer a direct comparison.  Extend that problem across all the turns of all the characters, it MIGHT average out.  Or it might not.  So it would seem that deciding that the rules in either game as being the better of the two might be the result of better dice rolling than rather than the quality of the rules, no?

Now, instead of a one vs one comparison, you try to do this to decide among Fistful of Lead, TRWNN, Dead Mans Hand, Desperado, Gutshot, and three or four others.  Can a real meaningful comparison be done?

Or do you do two at a time with the same scenario run multiple numbers of times so the different rolls average out?

Or are the choices of who to match against who rule-wise a factor as well?  Like in sports where the respective matchups are such that Team A routinely beats Team B who routinely beats Team C who routinely beats Team A?

Just curious what people thought about this.

I can see having a preference for one set of rules over another based on preferences of the mechanics, the level of granularity, the ease of play, and a number of other factors, but that is more subjective.  Do you prefer character types that have respective advantages and disadvantages?  Or the ability for the character to become skilled in different things?  I don't think either is "better" just a different feel to them.  Same with the extent of control you have over your character(s).  I've seen some where you have absolute control.  Some where you can try anything but have to roll form level of success.  Some where you can only do what a drawn card's suit allows you to do - such as move on a drawn heart, shoot on a spade, etc.  Combat where it is points off of your total hits, or points off specific locations.  With all of this, my choices may well not match yours but I don't think any are inherently better.

[has.been]

A question for this but also for other rules vs rules comparisons.

First. War is an art form & not a science. During the D-Day celebrations a Veteran
said, 'Don't call me a Hero, all the Heroes are dead, I was just lucky. I'm still here'

Second. Over the years I have found that wargamers fall into (mainly) one of two
groups. 1) Like painting toy soldiers & will use simple/familiar/fun rules so that they
                can play with their toys.
            2) Want to recreate History/War. These will force themselves to paint miniatures,
                or pay someone else to do so, to enable them to try out/use/amend the rules.
Group 1) will be quite happy to try & run across the open ground under fire, as long as
there is 'a chance' that it might just work.  A friend wrote a set of rules & in that the
absolute worst chance of hitting the target was 3%. I asked him why & he said that if
he reduced it to zero there were always enormous arguments that ruined the game.
At 3% players would normally miss, & the game went on. If they hit, everyone (even
the target player) said, 'Lucky Bast***!' & got on with the game.

Group 2) Are prepared to play the same scenario many times with different rules.
Compare the result with history & amend the rule until they are happy it IS as close
to  what they think it should be.

Whilst I admire those in group '2)'  I, myself, am definitely in group '1)'