Rules?

[Deleted User]

I would like to see which rules people here are using. This information may be elsewhere so as a newcomer, I’d appreciate a link.

To get the ball rolling….

Bronze Age & Punic Wars………………Field of Glory; Ancients

Dark Ages………….SAGA

Thirty Years War……………………Field of Glory; Renaissance

Seven Years War……………… A Glorious War (home groan)

Napoleonics…………was ELAN but we’re thinking of trying Shako out when we get a chance

AZW……………………..The Sword and the Flame

 

No sense of my list is any better than anyone elses’s. All rule sets are more or less flawed (except of course that brilliant SYW set, A Glorious War….)

 

 

donald

[Angel Barracks]

sci-fi skirmish:            KR 16                    (though to be fair you could with some tweaking, use the rules for any firearms skirmish period/genre)

[MartinR]

I am a bit eclectic and play lots of different sets of rules at the same time, many of them homegrown.

Ancients – mainly Command & Colours or Lost Battles.

TYW/ECW – playing around with variants of Neil Thomas Pike & Shot and Marston Less.

WSS etc – Twilight of the Sun King, variant of Lost Battles, alos Neil Thomas (mainly Simplicity in Practice atm).

Napoleonic – mainly Command and Colours these days.

Nineteenth Century – my own stuff or variants of other peoples. Looking at Bloody Big Battles.

WW1/SCW/WW2 – mainly my own stuff or variants of other peoples. Have recently done some One Hour Wargames variants for all of these.

Cold War – mainly NATO Brigade Commander.

 

"Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke

[Blackhat]

Ancients – WAB 2.0 and Neil Thomas AMW

ECW – File Leader

Marlburian – Beneath the Lily Banners

Napoleonic – Neil Thomas

FPW – Neil Thomas 19th Century

19th Century – The Portable Wargame / Funny Little Wars

WW2 – Panzermarsch / Airfix Battles

Fantasy – Kings of War

VSF – Martian Empires

Gangsters -Mad Dogs and Guns

Colonial NWF – TSATF and The Portable Wargame

probably forgotten some…

 

Mike

 

[Victoria Dickson]

Using in the loosest sense, as I haven’t played a game for months.

L’Art de la Guerre

Irregular Wars: Conflict at the Worlds End

Neil Thomas’s 19th Century Rules

And I love messing about with my own rule ideas, so a lot of home written stuff for other periods.

http://crazywargames.blogspot.co.uk/

[DM]

Assuming we are only talking land rules here..    🙂

 

Ancients up to ECW – I’m using DBA or variants.

Napoleonics – a home written F&F variant

ACW – F&F

Moderns – AK47 (original rules) and a home grown set for Vietnam

Probably using Operation Warboard for WW2, oh and Tanks for fun tanky games

[Whirlwind]

Ancients & Medieval: Polemos SPQR, Neil Thomas, DBA

ECW: Polemos ECW, Neil Thomas 

Napoleonics / Horse & Musket: Polemos Napoleonics, Neil Thomas, Simplicity in Practice

WW2: Nuts, WRG 1925-1950, Chain of Command, TW&T, Bag the Hun

[Shaun Travers]

Hmm.  I like testing out new rules and and am always searching for a set that is perfect.  I know I wont find them, but will get close enough with a few rules and that will be fine.  Part of the hobby for me is playing with rules I have not used before.  Saying that, these are my current rules that I am playing:

Ancients: My own, Ancient Battlelines Clash but otherwise Armati, Rally Round the King, Mighty Armies: Ancients. L’Art De Guerre I am expecting to add to the list, if I ever get around to playing them!

WW2; the 5 core system (as of two weeks ago), Take Cover!! and my own, WW2x2 Advance to Cover.

I don’t really do enough of other periods to have a set of rules.

[Rhoderic]

I feel like for the past few years I’ve been somewhat removed from the rules aspect of the hobby, although I do greatly enjoy looking at high-production-value rulesets for the photos and artwork, plus they sometimes provide good beginner-level introductions to historical conflicts.

I’m looking forward to getting back into that aspect some time later. One thing I’d like to do some day, if I can convince a patient opponent to go along, is to compare different rulesets for the same setting/period/theme by doing back-to-back gaming sessions in which we play more or less the same scenario with the same figures and table set-up but different rules each time. It’s a bit of a pipe dream, though.

[Shaun Travers]

Hello Rhoderic

I did that for ancient rulesets!  BUT…the patient opponent was me, so they were all solo. And back to back was more like plodding along as it took 4 years to get through the 27 rulesets I did play. and I did it using 2 battles as I got tired of the first one after 10 rulesets.  I do want to get back to do more as I do have another 20-plus on the list I would to try out.  I did blog the games in excruciating detail to show how the rules worked.  I also did a comparison after the first 10 games, but have not done a comparison after the next 17.  Still on my to do list.

Link to list of games:

http://shaun-wargaming-minis.blogspot.com.au/p/ancient-reviewsbattle-report-links.html

Link to rules comparison:

http://shaun-wargaming-minis.blogspot.com.au/2010/11/post-callinicum-rule-mechanism.html

 

[Chris Pringle]

I am pretty focused (or you might say narrow) in my interests. Not excited by anything pre-1792. Not interested in skirmish games – I want to be a general, not a lieutenant. Not interested in generic games, certainly not in tournament games, it really has to be an actual historical battle to satisfy my jaded palate.

Which means for the past 6 years or so I have been predominantly and obsessively playing my own “Bloody Big BATTLES!” rules, designing and fighting scenarios for major historical nineteenth-century battles, from Napoleonics through to 1914.

For WWII actions of a few battalions a side I like Kampfgruppe Commander for its wonderful command and control, activation/response mechanisms. Apparently 3rd edition should appear this year some time. But now I’m looking for something that will make bigger battles feasible.

Occasionally I take to the skies for some WWII or modern air action: ” Check Your Six!”

I do play other games now and then but not enough to mention here.

Chris

 

 

[Not Connard Sage]

WSS – Might & Reason.

 

…and that all nowadays. Interest is waning…

Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

[Mike Headden]

Fantasy – Warmaster

Ancients – Warmaster Ancients and occasionally beta testing of my own home grown “King of Kish” rules for Bronze Age Mesopotamia

Armada Period Naval – “La Flota” – another home grown set and also still very much in beta!

Wild West – Legends of the Old West

Napoleonic – Polemos: Marechal De L’Empire

WW2 Battle – Blitzkreig Commander

WW2 Skirmish – Chain Of Command

WW2 Naval – Battlefleet Gothic (Not my choice, I’d prefer GQ2, but it works surprisingly well!)

There are 100 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who can work from incomplete data

[A Lot of Gaul]

Ancients: Hail Caesar (using 18mm armies)

I am also very interested in the upcoming Swordpoint rules by Gripping Beast.

 

"Ventosa viri restabit." ~ Harry Field

[McKinstry]

Ancients – Hail Caesar (6mm)

Crusades – Hail Caesar (for 6mm) Impetus for 10mm – Not sure why but we evolved that way

ECW – Baroque Impetus (6mm)

FIW/AWI – Musket & Tomahawk (skirmish) 15mm Black Powder – all else – 6mm

Napoleonic – Blucher-6mm

ACW – Altar of Freedom -6mm thinking of 3mm and maybe 10mm

Colonial – Battles for Empire (although I will cheerfully play TSATF at any time) 6mm & 15mm

WW1+ – Blitzkreig Commander in 1/285 but seriously considering 3mm Spearhead or MegaBlitz

Old West – Hey You in the Jail & Pony Wars – 15mm

Ancient Naval – Poseidon’s Warriors – 1/2400

Age of Sail – Follow in the Admiral’s Wake – 1/2400 & 1/3000

Age of Steam & Iron – Broadside & Ram – 1/2400

Pre-Dreadnought – Still searching but using a modified General Quarters 3 – 1/2400 & 1/6000

WW1 & WW2 – General Quarters 3 mostly, Battle Stations, Battle Stations for really big battles – 1/6000

Sci-Fi – Horizon Wars – 6mm

I include scale since IMHO, in many cases, scales while not dictating does affect what rules work well as the larger stuff looks and works really well for skirmish and tactical while games at operational plus for really large battles, at least for me, work better in the smaller scales to still allow significant maneuver. I also assume a 4’x6′ table as being the ‘standard’ available as really big tables allow freedom for any set while under 4×6 can constrain non-skirmish in particular.

 

The tree of Life is self pruning.

[PatG]

Ancients: DBMM, DBA 2.1
Colonials/VSF: The Soldier’s Companion (Space 1889 mass battle), The Sword and the Flame.
WWII: Chain of Command
Fantasy: Warmaster
SF: Gruntz
VSF: Aeronef
Post-apoc: Car Wars 3x with Hotwheels

[zippyfusenet]

Over the past year, I haven’t played that many miniatures games. I’ve done more board-gaming, much of it miniatures-like games, such as Memoir ’44 and Clash For A Continent. Miniatures rules I’ve actually played in the past year have been:

DBA 2.1 (Weekend before last! Yay!)

CY6! – WWII airplanes

Song of Drums and Tomahawks – 18th century North American frontier

I have ambitions to stage games of Seapower III, Blue Skies, Flint & Feather, Yellow Ribbon…some day real soon. Yeah. Soon.

You'll shoot your eye out, kid!

[Deleted User]

A not entirely unexpected plethora.

Which leads to the next question: what do you look for in a set of wargaming rules?

Answers both obvious & more esoteric will be entertained!

When I think about it, it’s this: I want a set of rules that lets me game against my opponent: not against the rules.

So not overly complex, few loopholes but also the correct spirit. If the rules seem a genuine attempt to capture the history, it’s easier to accept the fiction that we’re recreating history.

 

donald

[zippyfusenet]

I want to play the game, not have the game play me. (“Your turn. Oh, too bad, you turned over a Stupid Union General card. You can’t do anything. Turn over.”)

I want stuff to happen. (“Lessee, we spent 3 minutes looking up all the factors and adding all the modifiers, rolled the dice…and it’s a draw. Melee continues next turn.”)

I want the narrative of the game to be historically plausible. I want the game to look good. I want to reach a decision in about two hours, ’cause Grandpa gets tired and needs his nap.

You'll shoot your eye out, kid!

[Guy Farrish]

Ancients – Impetus and (but more) Spear and Sword at the moment – occasionally get WRG 5th edition out – look at them and put them down again.

Early Mediaeval – Dux Bellorum

Mediaeval – Lion Rampant

Italian Wars – Impetus

ECW – WRG George Gush (shhh – don’t tell anyone)

Thirty Years War – Tercio and my own set- imaginatively entitled 30 Years War

Looking at 7 years war – Honours of War

Napoleonic – Volley & Bayonet

ACW – Longstreet & Volley & Bayonet

WWII – Blitzkrieg Commander and WRG Armour Infantry 1925-50 (1973)

Vietnam – Cold War Commander and Buckle for Your Dust and Andy Callan’s Vietnam rules

Cold War in Germany (gone hot – don’t just sit there for 45 years looking across the table at each other) Cold War Commander – occasionally WRG 1950-85

Modern(ish) platoon level – No End In Sight

Some of these are  ‘when I get around to playing’ – so not for a few years for some of them but I will play them all again.

[Mike Headden]

What do I want from a rule set?

I prefer the right result for the wrong reason to the wrong result for the right reason.

I like top down rather than bottom up.

I like enough luck that I lose because I’m unlucky and enough skill that I win because I’m brilliant.

If they can also accommodate multiple players a side so I can lose because my comrades let me down that’s good too.

Mainly I want everyone playing to have a good time, even if they lost. Actually, particularly if they lost!

There are 100 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who can work from incomplete data

[Piyan Glupak]

Ancients – DBA v1.1 with v2 army lists.  (I have used DBA 2.2 and 2.2+ in the recent past.)

Ancient Naval – Corvus

Fantasy – Hordes of the Things

English Civil War – DBR and DBA RRR. (DBA RRR is an adaption of DBA for the pike and shot era.)

Napoleonics – DBN

I have armies in preparation for the American War of Independence.  I intend to use the adaption of DBN from KISS.

[Victoria Dickson]

What I want from a rule set, hmmm…

I want to be able to play using only the QRS after the first couple of games.

I don’t want any mechanisms that make solo play impossible.

It should be playable in a small area, 2’x2′ preferably, but up to 4’x3′ is fine.

It should include designer notes, I love designer notes. 

http://crazywargames.blogspot.co.uk/

[Angel Barracks]

Victoria Dickson wrote:

What I want from a rule set, hmmm…

I want to be able to play using only the QRS after the first couple of games.

I don’t want any mechanisms that make solo play impossible.

It should be playable in a small area, 2’x2′ preferably, but up to 4’x3′ is fine.

This.
I also want the core engine to be simple enough to grasp after one turn, and easy to modify and add house rules without mucking up the way it plays.
Examples in the book of actions, examples of orders, of firing, of melee etc..

[Pijlie]

Ancients: WAB 1.5, War and Conquest

Dark Ages: WAB 1.5, War and Conquest, Dux Brittaniorum

Thirty Years War: Pike & Shotte, Witchfinder General, En Garde!

Colonial/VSF: The Sword and the Flame, GASLIGHT, Homegrown (PEWPEW)

WW2: Chain of Command

WW1: WH The Great War, Through the mud and the blood

Fantasy: Frostgrave, Dragon Rampant

Pulp: GASLIGHT, The Chicago Way, Homegrown (PEWPEW) En Garde!

Modern: Force on Force, Black Ops

SciFI: Tomorrow’s War, Horizon Wars, Battletech, Stargrunt II, Full Thrust, Necromunda

http://pijlieblog.blogspot.nl

[Rhoderic]

I’m increasingly a fan of rulesets focused on narrative scenarios with “RPG lite” elements, even for massed battle games to whatever (admittedly limited) extent that’s possible. I’m in this hobby to be a storyteller and a world-builder, not a military commander.

I need a ruleset to be supportive of and conducive to “new school” wargaming wherein 28mm is mainly a skirmish scale, massed battle is mainly done in the smaller scales, a 4 x 6 table is considered large and many games (especially skirmish games) can be played on considerably smaller (if fairly terrain-intensive) tables. If someone were to gift me a ready-made 6 x 8 gaming table and a pair of 500-figure 28mm armies I’d likely have to turn them down or pass them on, for lack of space. Old school wargaming “in the grand manner” is nice, but so are many other lavish things I can’t afford either.

It does matter to me whether a ruleset has some “vitality” in the wargaming community or not. I’m not that averse to migrating from ruleset to ruleset as enthusiastic game designers keep cranking out new, interesting titles and the flavour of the month keeps changing. I enjoy being part of the flow, being part of a dynamic hobby community. That said I’m not a complete stranger to crafting my own rules for personal use.

Production values in a rulebook matter, too – good photos, artwork, graphic design, etc. What some people call “gloss” or “chrome”. It’s not paramount, but nor is it inconsequential. This attitude seems to aggravate some people, and I understand what’s wrong with it, but I am who I am. I enjoy having the visual aspect permeate all parts of the hobby.

Designer’s notes? Yes please! That goes especially for historical rulesets because I typically won’t be familiar with the ins and outs of warfare in the given period beforehand, and I want to understand what the rules are trying to model. Designer’s notes are also important for other things, like gaining some insight into the author’s design philosophy.

On a related note, I like historical rulesets to include “crash courses” or “York notes” on the military history of the period in question. Can’t help being a neophyte to most historical periods. Not going to feel ashamed of it either.

As for how rules lite or rules heavy a system should be, all I can say is that I want ingenious, intuitive, fun rules that achieve a lot but don’t take long to read, learn or play. Yeah, that’s a bit of a feeble-minded statement, but I don’t know how else to put it. Detail and practical abstraction are both important.

[Rhoderic]

Shaun Travers wrote:

Hello Rhoderic I did that for ancient rulesets! BUT…the patient opponent was me, so they were all solo. And back to back was more like plodding along as it took 4 years to get through the 27 rulesets I did play. and I did it using 2 battles as I got tired of the first one after 10 rulesets. I do want to get back to do more as I do have another 20-plus on the list I would to try out. I did blog the games in excruciating detail to show how the rules worked. I also did a comparison after the first 10 games, but have not done a comparison after the next 17. Still on my to do list. Link to list of games: http://shaun-wargaming-minis.blogspot.com.au/p/ancient-reviewsbattle-report-links.html Link to rules comparison: http://shaun-wargaming-minis.blogspot.com.au/2010/11/post-callinicum-rule-mechanism.html

Wow, that’s much more ambitious than what I’ve been thinking about. I’d do maybe 3-4 rulesets for a given period/theme/setting, sticking to the more well-known titles. I’m thinking that would be a nice number of rulesets to compare for a prospective article which I could then submit to one of the wargaming magazines, which is part of the pipe dream for me. I’d like to read articles of that sort, written by other people who have had the same idea.

[Thuseld]

Rules I own or rules I actually play? I will list the rules I have actually played in the past five years or so.

WW2: Bolt Action, but haven’t played it on a couple of years.
Flying Lead, but again, haven’t played that in almost two years, but likely will use it again in a sci fi setting.

Sci Fi: Horizon Wars. This is my newest set and I have played more of this than any other rule set (although I can still count my games on two hands).
Starport Scum. I have almost finished one campaign with this set and have another campaign in the planning stages.

Notable mentions:
WW2 Battlegroup Kursk rule family: I own a couple of these but they have never made it to the table.
WW2 Crossfire: I decided not to base my figures on stands and Bolt Action came out shortly after I bought these rules so they went to the wayside. However in 6mm, which I think is my next venture, I will be basing on stands and can put together some easy terrain, so these might make their way off the shelf.
Song of Blades and Heroes: Have had this a while now and started painting 28mm Reaper minis in preparation, but it never went anywhere. I will likely play them in 6mm eventually instead.
5Core and Fifty Parsecs from Home: might give these a go, but Starport Scum seems like it will just be used instead.
Clash on the Fringe: a little larger scale than Starport Scum and I am not sure I want to base that many individual miniatures for it. But the rules look lovely and AARs I have read are awesome. Who knows?

Experiments here: http://inexperiencedmodelmaker.blogspot.co.uk/

Tranquil Stars updates: https://tranquilstars.wordpress.com

[Guy Farrish]

What do I look for in a set of wargame rules?

The easy ones first eh?

Depends. Sometimes I want to have fun, throw buckets of dice and push toy soldiers around.  So rules that don’t demand too much mental acuity or attention to detail and if they produce a simulation effect it is because of their elegance that imperceptibly pushes a yahoo like me into the correct path. If they don’t don’t but they produce a good flowing game as a centrepiece for a convivial evening that’s great too. Alcohol may or may not improve the experience of them.

Sometimes I want something a bit chewier that pays quite a lot of attention to engaging me in asking me to make the relevant decisions (albeit in a safe, controlled outcome way) that the original participants might have been asked to make with similar (bowdlerised and sanitised) pay offs. They don’t have to produce lots of ‘fun’ in laugh a minute style of competitive excitement, the fun comes from the immersive experience, but there can be room for off piste commentary.

Sometimes I want an exploration of one particular facet of historical events. I know no-one is going to kill or maim me or anyone relying on my decisions, but I want the difficulty and embuggerance factors around that aspect. This doesn’t mean ‘simulating’ the flight of every round in combat or the decision process of every section commander but I do want the bit I am playing to be quite intense and the mechanisms for implementing them and feedback from them to be within realistic parameters rather than entirely made up on the fly.

Looking at what I listed above most definitely end up being in the first category. I also play non-commercial rules sets with people who like elements of 2 and 3. Some of the commercial rules allow a flow over to cat 2 – Volley and Bayonet (although the almost complete lack of C2 mechanisms means some of the other bits of business bear quite a load plugging the effects back in). The cat 3 rules tend to be not miniatures/toys/cardboard counter oriented at all – Committee Games, Command Post simulations etc and for me have actually produced most of the most enjoyable wargaming I have done, although though they can be quite mentally taxing and tiring at the time.

So horses for courses. I don’t look for one definitive ‘Holy Grail/Maltese Falcon’ set, either commercial or one off ‘home’ produced.

[irishserb]

I just wrote a really, really  long detailed answer that was really, really boring (as opposed to this much shorter, but still really long and boring answer), but deleted it.  Mostly I play homebrew rules system.  I use one set of mechanics for 6mm, 15mm, and 20mm games covering modern, Cold War, Mid-east, Vietnam, and WWII.  There are two different infantry systems, one for 6mm squad level resolution, and one for individual at 15mm or larger.  The 20mm version is mechanically the same as 15mm, but  the larger scale, allows me to include greater detail for the dudes.  My biggest problem with commercial rules sets for these periods is that they are either not complete (Vietnam without helicopters, WWII without 1940, etc), or involve buying endless rule book expansions.  I’d rather buy figs than rules.

I also have a role-playing lite system that was designed for colonial/Victorian adventure. I call it Ponape, as my games are centered in the Pacific, like the movie Nate and Hayes.  I have since slightly expanded it into rules for modern/near future and post apoc games.

As for published systems, I use Star Fleet Battles for Star Trek ship combat,  much expanded Bismarck boardgame rules for WWII and WWI naval,  Mustangs & Messerschmitts for WWII air combat, and TSATF for colonial battles (Boxer Rebellion, Span-Am, etc.).

I look for different things in rules depending on the period and scope of the games, but generally I look for systems that allow me to immerse myself in the game, that permit me to role play  at whatever level I am commanding.  I prefer rules that can accommodate big games, tons of individually mounted figs, use d10 or d100 systems (I don’t think in base 6, why should my games), allow me use recce and move into battle, and actually use the physical terrain on the table as opposed to abstract area of effect.

The most important part of the game is enjoying the adventure of the game, not arriving at the destination.  Immersing myself in the “spirit of the game” allows me to derive joy from the experience.  Winning is nice, but not always possible.  Enjoying the adventure is always possible.

[McKinstry]

Hmm. In land games since I’m a small scale guy I like 1 base equals 1 unit to give me mass battles at a high tactical or operational level. I prefer a 2xD6 resolution rather than a linear such as in F&F. I, as with others, want to play with no more than a quick sheet after a time or two. Even in skirmish I want large numbers of figures on a table and lots of room to maneuver.

In naval I also prefer fast resolution with combat representing a cumulative effect over time rather than shell by shell resolution and relatively broad steps of damage rather then small increments.

In any set I look for the average sized battle to take three or four hours from start (not including set up) to conclusion.

 

 

The tree of Life is self pruning.

[A Lot of Gaul]

Update – as of December 2016:

Ancients: Swordpoint. After 20 years of searching, it has everything that I have come to look for in an Ancients rule set.

A grand tactical ‘big battle’ feel with 100-250 figures in 6-12 multiple-base units per side, and playable in 2 hours or less following set-up;

Rules that encourage the use of historical tactics, rather than arbitrarily mandating them;

Units that behave like their historical counterparts, i.e. heavy infantry battle lines remain solid until one side begins to buckle and then quickly collapses, skirmishers are fragile and shoot from appropriate distances, etc.

A turn sequence with morale, simultaneous shooting, and movement alternating by unit, with choice of initiative determined by a die roll that can be influenced by player actions, and simultaneous combat, all performed in that order;

Movement and maneuver for different types of infantry, cavalry and other units that is historically appropriate, e.g. heavy infantry is much less maneuverable than skirmishers or cavalry;

Shooting and combat that are each appropriately effective, when used by units in historically viable ways;

Unit cohesion/morale that plays a crucial role in determining victory, with commanders having an important role in aiding unit combat and/or cohesion;

Command bases that may move independently or attach themselves to a unit, with a viable risk/reward balance for either option;

Rules and mechanics that reward players for fighting aggressively, i.e. attacking and causing casualties through effective shooting and/or combat.

"Ventosa viri restabit." ~ Harry Field

[Patrice]

I’m too busy to update, expand, and sometimes translate in English, and update again, and rewrite again, my ruleset “Argad!” (which is a mixture of RPG and skirmish game) and to organize demo games locally, that I don’t often play other rulesets (although I’m happy to try other systems when I am invited to). 

http://www.argad-bzh.fr/argad/en.html
https://www.anargader.net/

[piers brand]

WW2 – Battlegroup series

SYW – Maurice

ACW – Longstreet

Fantasy – Warhammer 2nd Edition

Crusades – Soldiers of God

[Jeff Claxton]

WW2    Jagdpanzer 1st ed

Fantasy  Pride of Lions

Sci Fi  Gruntz

ACW  Johnny Reb II

Zombies  ATZ FFO

Still looking for the right set for The Hundred Years War and a set for The Wars of the Roses.

[OB]

I like rules that produce games that tell a good story that’s historically plausible.  So Piquet, Field of Battle for 1800-1900, other Piquet variants for earlier periods and Dan Mersey’s stuff.  Honours of War impressed me too.

OB
http://withob.blogspot.co.uk/

[Ivan Sorensen]

I see a few of my peeps in here 🙂

Personally and NOT including anything I wrote myself, the main suspects are Crossfire, 40K Rogue Trader, Chain of Command and Stargrunt II.

Blucher and Bolt Action are waiting in the wings along with Shadow War Armageddon.

[Darryl Smith]

Always looking for something better I guess, but fairly settled on these:

AWI – The British Are Coming

US Federal Period (1790s) – my own rules for quasi skirmish and tinkering with Gettysburg Soldiers for larger battles

War of 1812 Naval – undecided

Barbary Coast 1815 – modified Force on Force

ACW – Regimental and Brigade Fire and Fury

Spanish- American Naval – Quickfire

WWI air – Check Your 6! variant

WWII air – Check Your 6!

Korean War air – Check Your 6!

Vietnam – Force on Force and FNG!

Modern – Force on Force

Sci-Fi – Tomorrow’s War

Buckeye Six Actual
https://ambushedinthealley.blogspot.com/
http://foragecaps.blogspot.com/
http://germancolonialgaming.blogspot.com/

[Rob young]

DBA/HoTT variations – I play solo and each game has a different set of ‘extras’ to the basic rule set.

Rob Young

[Phil Dutré]

Over the years, we have been migrating from ruleset to ruleset … preferences change over time.

Currently, we play Black Powder for Napoleonics and GNW, Hail Ceasar for Ancients, Dragon Rampant for Fantasy, house rules for ACW and Scifi and Nap6mm and Wild West, I am not even sure what we used for our last WW2 game …. Mostly it’s the host who decides what rules we play (we play at each other’s houses). If the host decides to try out something new, so be it.

As a rule of thumb, we want rules that can be summarized on a single A4, play fast, have enough historical flavour, and can conclude a game within 3 hours. Historical accuracy (whatever that is) is less important, good gameplay and interesting player decisions are the main factor. Some storytelling elements are preferable as well. Strict adherence to army lists are a thing of the past – the host decides on scenario and forces, and when players arrive, we usually dice to decide who takes what side. No more “my army of 3000pts vs your army of 3000 pts”. Our playing style is much more focused on the scenario rather than on a specific ruleset. The rules are there to support the game, not the other way around.

But there’s no right or wrong in this. Every player group is a little bubble in the wargaming universe, and has to converge to a playing style that that group is comfortable with.

[Author]

Posts