Yesterday I played the VBCW game I had been painting towards-
The table, in lovely autumnal sunshine , awaiting the start of the day…
Duke of Brunswick’s forces defending the village with Scots assaulting from one table end and Norwegians from the other. Cards , incidentally,are used to show the order of moving and then the order of firing.
Too busy table with too many units and too much terrain. Coupled with the size of the playing cards it led to a rather unsatisfying look of the thing.
Too much arguing about the rules ( Went the day well) and exploiting them for a rather gamey game. Playing the rules not the period. Rules lawyering at its worst.
It was an exhausting and frustrating experience for me as umpire. It is a fun , light hearted game which became an experience where slavish interpretation of the rules and accompanying exploitation of loopholes took precedence over common sense etc. I will not be playing this again sadly for a while…
Without the playing cards the table looks really nice - is there another mechanism you could employ that would be more discrete (eg numbered tiddlywinks?). Sorry to read that you didn't enjoy the game.
ReplyDeleteWee playing cards might work…
DeleteAlan Tradgardland
Agree with MJT about the table. Sorry to hear about the frustrations of the actual game.
ReplyDeleteWhat about using those small beads with letters on them? Put duplicates in a bag and activate units in the order they are pulled out of the bag.
Chris/Nundanket
A cunning plan indeed!
DeleteAlan Tradgardland
Live testing is the only way to get the feel of a set of rules, so it's not time wasted really.
ReplyDeleteMy other thought is that as years have gone by my appreciation of simple rules that let the player make his own mistakes has increased 10 fold.
We have been using the rules happily for some time but pedantry was sadly the order of the day.
DeleteAlan Tradgardland
Oh dear rules lawyers always ruin a game. Have you tried the 38 rules based the legends of the old West?
ReplyDeleteIndeed! Now there’s a thought, no I haven’t.
DeleteAlan Tradgardland
I though the table looked good, I can see what you mean about the cards though, a real shame that the game was not an enjoyable one.
ReplyDeleteI liked the table but too much terrain led to arguments about line of sight and firing.
DeleteAlan Tradgardland
Hmmm. The table is a touch dense perhaps, but not so bad.
ReplyDeleteHave to agree with Ross above - testing rules is the only true way of finding the right ones, and simple is usually best.
These are simple rules for not suited to gamey or competitive players who play the rules over the spirit.
DeleteAlan Tradgardland
Oh dear a sad experience , I rather like the table set up but the cards could be a bit more discrete perhaps
ReplyDeletePut me right off, it has!
DeleteAlan Tradgardland
I'm sorry to hear of your sad experience, I've had that and it's a huge downer on enthusiasm for more games. The use of cards - The Chicago Way uses the same type of system and even using the smaller size cards that are available it is still a problem. I prefer turning a card to see which side goes next - it adds to decision making as there are usually too many units "I must move next!". And it echoes Ross's point about allowing players to make their own mistakes. Could I suggest adapting my Memoirs of '34 that we use for Mark's Little Soldiers and Star Spangled Army invades Maple Leaf County?
ReplyDeleteMemoirs of 34 a plan but my regular opponents are agin square or hex games with figures sadly.
DeleteAlan Tradgardland
Yes, piles of cards on the table are one of the things I am not keen on with To The Strongest and For King & Parliament.
ReplyDeleteAs to the experience of the game, it sounds like the issue was the players, not the rules! Although sometimes, if it is written down in the rules, and it benefits your side, you do feel you should stand your ground and not just "go with the flow" to let the other side off the hook - its a fine balance!
A fine balance indeed, one I perhaps got wrong!
ReplyDeleteAlan Tradgardland