RFCM

1. Players who moan about bad luck.
2. Slow players
3. People interrupting your game when they've nothing better to do.
4. People being careless with your figures - dropping them or knocking them over.
5. Complaining about a set of rules when they have only played once and lost.

Pretty much sums up my feelings, which is why I am easing myself out of one part of the club and into another. Two other pet hates of mine are: a) people who moan about the game you've taken time to put on, but never put one on themselves, and b) people who slow a game so that they can measure to the exact millimetre.

Agreed, Leman.  Blokes who are forever moaning about rules to the minus n'th degree and measuring to the nearest millimetre.  Got one in the local group.  I just decline to join in the game.
What happened to the concept of fun?

Stephen

I suppose one way of dealing with the measuring retentive is to only play Square Bashing with them.

How about players that choose an action, carry it out, it goes badly, then they declare they did not want to do that and put things back to their original position.

Ha


martin

I'm afraid that in most cases that would raise a fair amount of ire, although I would be prepared to accept that from a novice or a player unfamiliar with a set of rules.

4b) Players who are eating potato chips and then touch your figures.

4c) people touching your figures without asking

I wouldnt say these are grumbles as much as observing others grumble or make observations  that make me want to grumble back about what my motives actually are and what theirs are....if you know what I mean

1) Having a completely historical orbat of regular troops & being told that it isn't "worth the points"   (I've failed the exotic tweak  test)

2) Using weapons historically accurately in an orbat & getting told it isn't in the rules.  (I failed the rules overrule any historical knowledge test )

3) being told it's gamey to use particular weapons that were historically used in a role they were used in   :-[, for the army my troops represent. because its  against an army they never fought  :'( , but had I used  an army of the same nationality  that did fight that opponent,  with everything exactly the same stands ......that would be okay.  ( I failed the "consider your opponent's army" match up test)

4) Using proxies that dont look or behave at all like the vehicle they represent. (these panzer iv's are actually 105 stugs....Its up to you to remember that my arch of fire is restricted....I will not forget that my armour and gun values are better tho and will turn my turrets to face your tanks to give the impression there is no issue with arc of fire)

5)  Claims their British black powder  Napoleonic army is anglo-portuguese because they added 3 rifle armed cacadore battalions to it   ;D

Agree on all pointsides Kev. The first I think especially!

The big one for me is playing against someone who insists on using totally ridiculous and inaccurate tactics, who then complains that the rules aren't very good when unsurprisingly they get thrashed.

I was playing Patrols in the Sudan. My opponent kept his British in column. I even kept asking whether he wanted to redeploy into line. I charged into him from cover each time and it was a slaughter. He hardly got a shot off. Very painful and disappointing game to play. To cap it all he the suggested that rules weren't very realistic. :o

Yes I have experienced this before now.

Although I only have a few years of war-gaming under my belt, here goes:

• Players who indulge too much in historical realism. I can't stand it when someone is bent on changing a rule to make it more "appropriate" or "realistic" for the period in question. (i.e. that weapon shouldn't be that accurate, because in real life it wasn't!) Sometimes, folks need to remember it's a game, not a simulator.
• Folks who chime in to be rules-lawyers when they're not even playing! If you're not at the table, then let the players play the way they'd like to.
• The phrase "it's just a game" or "it's just a friendly game." For some reason, it sounds condescending when it's repeated over and over. I mean, we all get a little flustered when things don't go our way, but it doesn't help when someone is rubbing in their victory like that.
• Folks who walk up to start conversations and end up distracting players. Could you not bring up the entire literature of some historical period whilst we're playing? Save it for later, chum.
• The overly defensive or overly aggressive player. Now, I'll say this: I don't mind aggression as much as I do overly-defensive tactics. All out charges can be fun! What's not fun is your opponent staying on the other side of the field. During an open field battle. Wasting turns. Wasting time.

Have you come across the Solo Wargamers'  Association?

Quote from: Leman on September 26, 2016, 07:21:57 PM
Have you come across the Solo Wargamers'  Association?

Har, har. Very funny.  ;)

Although, if your question is a genuine one, then I know of them. Mind you, I wouldn't enjoy the hobby if it weren't for the wonderful people I've met along the way. To be fair though, I've also met some less-than-agreeable folks too (hence my pet hates and grumbles).

Oh dear me. I do know exactly what you mean, especially two and four. There are a couple of individuals I know who fit that mould exactly. I haven't really come across the other three, and I'm happy to say the winning gloater is something I've never experienced (and, believe you me, I lose more often than win).

My #1 - People who roll dice through the active areas of the table rather than to one side.

Especially when they didn't spend hours painting those figures you're letting them play with.

My #1 hate are wargamers who think that wargames are an accurate representation of warfare.

Game first....

Quote from: peterctid on November 01, 2016, 10:08:23 AM
My #1 hate are wargamers who think that wargames are an accurate representation of warfare.

Game first....

This is my own gaming mantra. I want a game to look nice, with plausible rules, played with good friends that is over in around 2 hours. But I can do without the 'simulation'.

One assumes that if the rules are any good it will bear some resemblance to what went on in history. Unless of course it's one of those faeries and robots games with zombie Nazis, in which case.............

I have one pet hate.  Miniature rule writers who claim their rules are the most realistic rules ever written.  And 13 out of 10 combat veterans agree.

You could add to that folk who "imply" they have seen combat on the Eastern front etc.   Such as "in the author's experience"!  Wow.
Also there was a set of WW2 rules in which the forward invited anyone with any comments to forward their own war record and combat experience, before having the temerity to challenge their perfect rules (take cover?) Although I believe  the rule writers had fought at Normandy, Arnhem, Kursk, Saipan and  Bastogne. Hence their prickliness about non WW2 veterans commenting?

1: People who insist on playing so fast that you stand no chance of keeping up with what is going to on or who is rolling what, why or even whose turn it is and they talk to you in game rules shorthand as though you have the faintest idea of what they are talking about?

2: People who move buildings (or other scenic items.) just so they can get a unit into a square. They say it only represents that there is a building or worse still buildings, somewhere nearby. No, it is a building! Soldiers cannot pick them up just because they are in the way. If you cannot fit the troops in, they don't fit and that is that.

3: Games that have one tank and it is not one tank but represents a whole squad or platoon of them and similarly small units of infantry, cavalry that are actually not just 16 men but a complete regiment. If it is a 15mm game then I like the rules to represent a 15mm tank or unit of 16 or however many men. If I wanted to play a game with thousands of troops/ tanks etc I would use 6mm or smaller.

4: Yes, people who put their unwanted paws all over your models.

5: Not having a social aspect to the club. Yes you are there to wargame, but when you have been going for over a year and you know nothing about your opponent beyond their name and gender then we have lost something really. I do think that there is some merit in 'talk' time , either prior to games starting at a coffee break when the whole club breaks together, not just your game, or afterwards. All too often I find I am left playing and everyone else aside from my Opponent has done a runner and apart from an 'evening' or 'hello' I have not heard from them all night.

6: One more, sort of contradicts what I just said, but it is in a different context. People on the next tables talking so loudly that you can hear them but not what your opponent is trying to say.

Some good discussion starters there Duncan.

It would be good to discuss some of these things maybe in the club? Do you think people would be open to discussion on general non game specific hobby stuff, or just general ideas?

I was only saying the other day that it would be good to have an evening at the club where we did not game but did stuff like made models, painted figures etc so we could still do hobby stuff but had time for some social interaction. Not sure how the others may feel about that?

Has this become a forum for a specific club?

I think Duncan is just asking in general would club members meet to do other things within the hobby instead of playing a game.
He is asking the forum members their opinion.
I personally would rather play games as they are designed for two or more players so can not play at home (my wife doesn't play with toy soldiers). Painting is in my opinion a solo pastime and would probably not turn up at my local club if a painting night was organised.

I suppose to be no extra, I enjoy painting figures and making models / scenery even more. I love to talk about them, do conversions and see what other people have done or are doing in order to get ideas and inspiration.

Gaming is by far a lesser important thing for me. I don't really care if I win or loose, I would rather have an extra dead Base than spend hours trawling through a book to look up the minutiae of a rule that describes something. It is just better to let your opponent Bhavesh the advantage especially if they like to woman's it seems fair to me. (Although I don't like people who run your face in it when they win all the time.)

I just want to enjoy the hobby and that to me is talking about the models and all that stuff, maybe play the odd game, but not get that bogged down in the rules. Have it a bit relaxed and laid back, time to get to know is people, they may even turn out to be nice and friendly, you never know? Maybe you could arrange to go out for a meal or a beer or something with them?

I don't think that all these things should be mutually exclusive . At our club games are played and some come to paint and assemble their models. We always try to finish by 10 so we can have the game debrief in the pub. This has been the same for all the clubs I've been to pretty much

Pretty similar in my club - some members, including me, sometimes turn up not to play a game but just to see what's going on, have a chat, paint figures, organise armies (it is a permanent set up, so many armies are stored there), sort out terrain items and even paint the premises. I've even had a couple of solo games down there when everyone else has been involved in other projects. Pretty much anything goes.

You forgot the cup of tea or something stronger and the biscuits!!

Coffee/tea making is catered for, as is bring your own Soviet hip flask.

Whilst we have tea and coffee, that is it. Even then the kitchen is down some steps and being crippled it is hard for me to negotiate them. Therefore I usually have to rely on there to get it for me.

We never have an after club meeting in the pub (which when I joined I had assumed would be something that automatically happened.) as people want to get home to their other halves I am told. I know that my wife expects me home by just after ten as well and we had an incident where I was late one time and it caused a big argument in which my continued attendance at the club was in doubt until other club members interceded on my behalf.

I'll add people who never paint their models but expect to use them. :)

I'm very happy to provide toys to people who don't have painted forces but don't just keep bringing unpainted/just undercoated models and want to play with them. They don't have to be great but make an effort as it's better than the deadly silver or black undercoated army - see my blog for examples of ok stuff, which IMO are good on the table top. Nothing spoiled the visual effect than unpainted models.

P.S. I am envious/in awe of the superb paint skills of some people as well - but that's a different item. I just can't get to that level of skill ;)

Tbh I've only ever known that to happen once at our club; a huge array of undercoated space orks (surprise, surprise).

I've seen a lot of unpainted armies in my time. Not good in my opinion either.mif it isn't painted then it isn't ready to be played with.

Thought I'd have a go, but find myself struggling because I'm normally pretty calm and chilled..

1. Slow Play - the absolute bugbear - ditherers who hum, harr and don't seem to think ahead at all.
2. That guy who drifts off when it's "not his move" - then drifts back having completely lost the place, dithers, humms, harrs "Are those cavalry mine or yours?"
3. "What score do I need?" (J.R.T.B.D.) - frequently uttered by slow playing guy.
4. Rules / scenarios where both sides edge forward at a fixed rate, then die in a big scrum on the table's centre-line.
5. Pikes and all aspects of models that bear them.

Definitely slow play! Rather lose quick than draw (or die of boredom 😳). I regularly play  DBA 'fast play' ancients, and my worst moments are when a player takes forever to move, regardless of whether they threw a 6 or a 1 for initiative.
(That said, I'd still prefer them to turn up and play than stay away....more the merrier)

Just some thoughts to add to the fire/conversation.

Slow play can be caused be a variety of circumstances.
Firstly it is relative. If both players are slow, then then play speed is fine for those players.
If a rule set has a lot of moving parts then play is slowed. DBA has relatively few moving parts but yes some folk can go slow.

Here are some  mechanisms put  into RFCM rule sets deliberately, to allow players to play faster.

1. In the new pirate sea fight, there is a compulsory order of ship  motivation/action. Players have to use their ships in the order the record sheets are laid out (left to right).
2. Square bashing insists on a right to left motivation/action order. This allows players to focus on a small area of the game, before moving on to the next.

Rule familiarity.
Some players find rules hard to assimilate and thus are a bit adrift when decisions have to be made.

Having a plan
Ability to keep changing your mind. This is very popular in the current "blow things up" small figure count 25mm games. This type of game should speed up  play, because each turn will not affect future turns, in terms of commitment to a plan. However it often leads to a slower player considering every option before continuing.

Many of the current quick play crop:-
The figures can easily move to  a very different position and merely react to what had happened. So the process is "move some figures according to a 1 turn plan", "watch opponent move his", "make up a new plan for the current turn", "repeat". Then throw in some game changing random cards

I enjoy a game more, wherein the players have to follow a plan (in the main) once committed to it. Changing a plan should cause  detriment to a player's game outcome.  Units deployed on the left will never fight on the right. Not enough time to sweep around the table with a super unit "vacuuming" up opposition .

Only personal thoughts, not applicable to others i expect.

Happy new year.

Excellent points Martin.

I'm particularly impressed that game mechanisms are selected for ease / speed of play (We need a lot more of this).

My own epiphany was reading DBA and comparing the ease and speed of resolution to WRG 6 or 7.
Things DBA have gone south a bit since then with players inventing atrocities like mooning, and a sequence of revisions that sem to have added complexity back in (curse the denizens!!).

I find it extremely difficult to remember status between rounds of play.
It's OK in the early rounds, but all seems to go out the window when forces meet and cross cold-steel.
That biases me toward stateless games (The type where you move each turn as opposed to sticky orders).
It sounds quite bland, but provides a challenging game if combined with an appropriate command friction mechanism.

Steve, what's "mooning", in a DBA sense? Not a term I've heard.

Martin S

Mooning is a villanous practice used to exploit overlaps in the DBx families.

Imagine 2 lines meeting following a group move, the longer line will enjoy overlaps.

Now imagine instead, the flank unit makes an independent move.
This move takes it slightly away from, and past the enemy flank into the rear.
It then slides slightly sideways to a position where it impedes any potential enemy recoil.

If they lose the fight, the enemy element is now destroyed since it cannot recoil.
Mooning, since you're presenting your butt to the enemy.


I understand that movement and ZOC rules may have been modified in different versions to mitigate this practice, but it has been a perennial grumble.

Ah - so it's the same as "the buttocks of death"?

similar, but "buttocks" could be just the front corner. Its bee around for over 20 years now, and really was indicative of DBx 'accidentally committing suicide' in the competition scene. That said there are similar 'moves' in ALDG (love child of DBM and FOG) so someone must like it !  ::)

Thanks. Has been reduced in effect in DBA v3. If there's so much as 1mm of recoil available, the recoiler moves said distance and stops (no longer instantly destroyed). Less nasty than before.
'No mooning allowed' may be the new catchphrase  :)

It's ultimately down to personal taste.

1st Ed DBA was a superb ruleset - Revolutionarly but in a way that cut effort, play time and page count.

Alas it soon succumbed to the competition crowd finding ways to exploit semantics and nano-manoeuvre.
This led to a string of rulings, interpretations, revisions.

DBA's efficiency came with a large dollop of abstraction - something that, for me, required some suspension of disbelief.
I'm afraid all the legal and geometric shenanigans combined to shatter that disbelief.


On the plus side, it left me hungry for other games with simple implementations of command friction.
It also made me aware of the benefits of a grid on the playing surface.
Indirectly that led me to the Rules for the Common man.

Mine is the person who says they will be out for game on gaming evening but then cancels 10 minutes before or many hours later - with an excuse around work or something.

I know things come up but if you commit to a game with someone be considerate of their time as well as your own.

Happened to me a couple of times.  Bit annoying.

Happened to me today when one player cried off with a cold (after I'd already travelled into the club. Fortunately another player turned up so we were able to conclude the game.

New number zero to add to my list.

Apparently smart people who write stuff in their blogs like like "Over a few rolls the luck will even out".
It's often cited as a lame defence of games prone to snowballing.

Let's review this again:

Rolling 30 dice at once - the sheer number means you're more likely to roll a total  near the median.
This is the basis of the well traveled 1d10 is more "swingy" than 2d6.
This crops up in a lot of game reviews. (See also 1d20 Vs 2d10, and various other combinations)


However we gamers rarely consider the total when we're rolling "buckets".
We're usually looking at pass / fail events - or occasionally more states like fumble / fail / pass / critical.

In this situation there's no memory in the dice that will compensate your terrible or great luck from another part of the game.
It won't even out.

We constantly remind Martin (a maths teacher and war gamer) of this phenomena.

Well said Steve Holmes 11  :)

Also, some rolls are more important than others. A successful roll out on a flank where not much is happening balanced against a poor roll in the centre of the fighting that may or may not turn the tide in the game means the two rolls average out but one is more important than the other.


I'm quite good at the former but not great at the latter!

Some thoughts that might contribute to the discussion.

RFCM rules are built around the assumption that if it goes horribly wrong 4x for a force then all is lost. 1,2,3 x horribly wrong you should  be Ok to fight on. Horribly wrong should only rarely result in that part being lost from the game. Thus a part will contribute to future game events.
e.g A Hammerin iron ship should be able to suffer a devastating broadside and still be an active part of the game.

This means that the rules usually have about 9 moving parts per player. Each horribly wrong will lose 1 part from the game.
This is also the reason for long list of victory points. Therefore various ways to succeed. Thee are always options.

The problem arises when parts are despatched too  easily and lost from the game.
Another problem is the "blue flag scenario" wherein the  game hangs on one simple and exclusive condition.  e.g. whomever holds (is on) the bridge has won. No matter at what cost or the strength of the "hold". Thus the bridge holder is surrounded and wounded, but is on the bridge. Thus  blue flag planted , a win!