Death of Warhammer Historical

[Notts Gamer]

Still, one tomahawk wins over one sixshooter.... its not cheese, its a fundamental flaw in the game.

K

It is a 'game' though and meant to be (I'm sorry to use the 'F' word....) fun.

[Dewbakuk]

I have to be honest I've never played Legends of the Old west but I worked at GW head office when it was printed. One of the reasons I've never played it is because of the complaints from the playtesters, quite a few around at the time, they all gave very similar complaints with the close combat and some of the weapons etc. When they gave their feedback at the scheduled time through an email group set up for it, they were told the books had already gone to print and it was all fine...

[styx]

It is a 'game' though and meant to be (I'm sorry to use the 'F' word....) fun.

You sir have till noon to get out of town! 

[styx]

I have to be honest I've never played Legends of the Old west but I worked at GW head office when it was printed. One of the reasons I've never played it is because of the complaints from the playtesters, quite a few around at the time, they all gave very similar complaints with the close combat and some of the weapons etc. When they gave their feedback at the scheduled time through an email group set up for it, they were told the books had already gone to print and it was all fine...

It's not a perfect system but I have yet to find a wargame that is. If you never played a game because people complained about it there would not be much to play. I am always of the thought give it a try at least once. If you hate it, walk away and find something else.

[Lowtardog]

The LOTOW works ok, I think the Pirate one is better as the melee options for weapons etc and the list of characters in the book including NPC give you ready made stats for pick up games as if honest I dont play linked games or one type of game often enough.

If they wanted with LOTOW to give more weapon types they should have and I supose you could, go for D10 to work in slight differences in hitting power accuracy etc

[Dewbakuk]

It's not a perfect system but I have yet to find a wargame that is. If you never played a game because people complained about it there would not be much to play. I am always of the thought give it a try at least once. If you hate it, walk away and find something else.

Should have been a little clearer, given that I live in Nottingham, quite a few of the people I'd play Old West games with are the same people who made an effort to do the playtesting. Besides I have rules for Old West gaming that I like already so I don't need to try it

[Captain Blood]

I think, as someone said earlier, the real secret is that it doesn't matter what rules you play with - just make sure you play with people who approach the game in the same spirit of fun you do. There are people out there who can make even the loveliest set of rules a miserable experience, because basically, they are tossers 
Equally, you can have a very enjoyable 'narrative' game with the feeblest set of rules if it's played in the right spirit.
I'm not saying I don't like to play well and win in games I play. But I try to remember that it's about the fun of playing the game with a group of like-minded people - not about the winning at all costs, or about the rules.

Anyway, bit off topic there. Sorry about that 

[Galland]

I think, as someone said earlier, the real secret is that it doesn't matter what rules you play with - just make sure you play with people who approach the game in the same spirit of fun you do. There are people out there who can make even the loveliest set of rules a miserable experience, because basically, they are tossers 
Equally, you can have a very enjoyable 'narrative' game with the feeblest set of rules if it's played in the right spirit.
I'm not saying I don't like to play well and win in games I play. But I try to remember that it's about the fun of playing the game with a group of like-minded people - not about the winning at all costs, or about the rules.

Anyway, bit off topic there. Sorry about that 

Me and Kalle never ever play to have fun, or to allow for anyone else to have a good time, we allways try to go for rules set that allows for cheesy and beardy warbands, allways opted for maximum boordom. We also never ever play narrative games either, its so last year.

[abu iskander]

Same here. I live to count buttons and rivets. Screw "fun"; it's just a form of weakness, really.

[joroas]

Absolutely, what was wrong with Newbury rules, anyway? 

[Elbows]

I think that's the key point.  I am fortunate enough to play with "mostly" very good guys.  A few tournament hounds and cheesers every now and then.  When we play, we often play to how we think the event would occur, vs. what the rules would let us get away with.  It makes the game immensely more enjoyable.  Same reason I quite playing pick-up games in stores --- always ended up with some rules-abusing asshat.

I'd actually prefer to ditch a bunch of the LOTOW rules, but all of my group know them.  I think as a game for progressing a posse along through several games it works pretty well.  We had to really up the gold though, as you get almost nothing, and your models die off quickly.

I will agree though, like ALL GW games...HTH is always way too powerful.  Same problem in 40K and every other game they make.  Trying to create false strategy by opening up another avenue of attack, to keep people from hunkering down in buildings too much I guess. 

[Galland]

Sometimes, people making a warband using the existing rules, they make hardhitting units. These units most often win over my and your warbands. It doesnt necesary mean that they are bad wargamers, or cheesy, or beardy, or general assholes, it can mean that they are just better at putting warbands together.
It boils down to the fact that we do game with winning as part of the game. Sometimes, some people win more than others, its okay, they are usually better than me when it comes to reading the rules, judging a troop choise value over another and so forth. It usually means that I get my ass handed to me, and it is still okay, since part of the game was competative.
My friend Kalle have that ability, he can read the rules, and instantly find loopholes, and most of the times we try to cover them up, patching them with our own good will if you like. It is, after all, simple mechanics and the math that is part of it can be overcome with some creative thinking. I dont have that, I allways opt for the nice pistols, cool rifles, scary looking cannons, he doesnt.
However, then we have the ones that cant live without winning, they simply must win. I dont play with them, its as simple as that, especially since I seldom play competative games. However, its their choise, their way of playing and its up to them. I take it, that they propably dont want to play with me either, since we simply put dont have the same goals.
The general ecception to this is naturally when playing against Kalle, I allways do try to win as hard as I possibly can, since its both fun to play against him, and its exeedingly fun to gloat those few times that I do actually win.

A third kind is the ones pretending to be better than the rest of us. Their games are better than ours, they have more fun, their stories and narrative gaming are superior and their gaming tables are propably the best made ones ever. I dont play with these people either.

[Conquistador]

Just my tres centavos (inflation) in that I play to have fun, recreating history (or creating a secondary reality pseudo-history/narrative,) and - should it happen - enjoying the glow of victory.  

If "historical" games reward grossly ahistorical tactics (Fantasy/Science Fiction get a lot more slack) over historically successful tactics then I really don't enjoy them.      If a game, in general but much more so for "historical" rules, rewards "real life" logical tactics (if 21st century personal body armor makes  20th century slug throwers successful on a 20 on a D20 only I can live with that,) then I prefer that.    TSATF, for example, is  a good game  :- in some ways but the complete inability of highly trained troops to react with rapid-fire rifles to visible advancing threats seen last turn with no distractions and not having fired last or this turn makes the game significantly less appealing to me (and I usually play the natives in those games so it's not a "Victory fever" thing) because  it's just a mechanics over logic design IMO.  I play TSATF when my friend blake puts out the troops but that's because it's Blake.  

Never a GW fan for myriad of reasons but it saddens me to see so many of my fellow gamers locally (a minority of the gamers here I suspect) losing out in this decision.  If I understand GW's business plan correctly it is the correct decision for them.

Gracias,

Glenn

[Jim French]

I have never been a WH fan, but the loss of any historical gaming source is not good.

[Conquistador]

I have never been a WH fan, but the loss of any historical gaming source is not good.

Actually... I completely concur with that evaluation, despite my known anti-GW tastes.

Gracias,

Glenn