Rules

[Solentneil]

Hi, can anyone tell me why version two of RoF are so different from version one. I purchased V2 but after looking at it sent them back (never done that before, I am not the complaining type). We are using 28mm figs and don't use grids.

[martin goddard]

Hello Neil

Welcome to the group

Good question. I will give a big answer as it may be of wider interest?
Several reasons why each edition of a rule set changes drastically.

1. PP has the longest time between editions of any rule publishers. The usual time is  more than 10 years. No other rule publisher does that.  e.g. Western was first published in 1992 and 2nd Edition 2018 =26 years.  Regiment of Foote first published 2002 and second edition 2016=14 years. In these time spans most other rule publishers have come and gone or done at least 3 editions. the present BB has a first edition in 2005 with 2nd edition planned for 2020= 15 years.
2.  When a PP set is being developed it probably has more play testing than most other rule sets. This is one of the reasons many rule sets are into a second edition within 2 years. Because the original mechanisms and ideas did not work and were not tested enough. Most rule publishers produce a second or third edition which merely corrects the mistakes made in the first edition.
3. The PP philosophy is that a rule set should be "built to last".  Many rule publishers have a business philosophy of "it should last 2 or 3 years then you have to buy the same thing again with a  few minor tweeks".
Other rule sets i think(I have no stats)  are popular, would be Warhammer, Flames of war, DBMx, Black powder, Rapid Fire, TSATF, ADLG, Fields of Glory. How often are these put into a new edition?  Is that new edition a modification of the previous edition?
4.Because PP rules are all very original they need not be re-written to comply with the latest "fad".  Recent fads have been cards with a large amounts of  data on them, skirmish, use of incorrect words such as "faction","universe" and "warband". I observed  a recent set of Viking skirmish (1:1)rules in which it needs 2 figures minimum  to form a shield wall.
5. Because the first edition of each PP rule set works just fine (?) a new edition needs to offer a whole new "vision".
6. PP of course has it's own fads. 
7. Various PP rule sets have been copied in part or mostly by gamers adding some more ranges or other minor fiddles.
8. PP has championed the use of grids in the face of all the other measuring trends. Other rule sets are now starting to use grids. As I have said before , when GW or another mass marketer makes a gridded rule set, a lot of gamers will suddenly declare "I liked grids all along didn't I?"   To be fair I think it is made pretty clear that ROF uses grids?
9. Each second edition of PP rules makes strenuous efforts to not out date the forces a  player would have built for the first edition. I did not need to change my basing or figures for ROF, BB, PBI,HI, SB etc etc...  Can you use the same army for Warhammer version 1 and x ?

This may all sound a bit pompous, but I think PP deserves to get a lot of credit for not building in obsolescence  and providing rules which are a full and complete package.

In addition you can chat with the PP rule writers direct, see the process of rule writing in action on this group, have the rules supported by a matching figure range, download free sheets and sample the games with the writers at shows. Who else even comes close to that?

Marvellous

[John Watson]

I don't know why the rules changed so much, but that is progress for you. No doubt Martin will be able to explain. I don't play RoF in either version so cannot really comment. Bloody Barons is under a rewrite at present and it currently looks as if that will undergo significant changes. I am undecided how much I like the new version at the moment, but I really liked the old version.
At the end of the day there is nothing to stop you using the old version of RoF. At our club we have one member who still uses the original version of PBI from whenever it was.
If possible check out the PP on line videos to get a feel for the various rule sets.

[Colonel Kilgore]

This is an interesting thread.

The videos are a relatively recent development and, as John says, really good for getting a feel for how each set of rules work.

It might also be worth pointing out that PDFs of many old RFCM rules are also available via the PP website. These might  be
best thought of as quite different games, rather than a DBA / DBM / DBMM / FoW type of continuous improvement around the same basic core.

[Stewart 46A]

Treat RoF V1 and RoF V2 as different rules for the same period that you can use the same figures without rebasing.
I have bought many rules sets and decided I don't like them but have never sent/taken any back.
For me squares offer quick movement stops players doing strange things with rulers when measureing and generally makes the game quicker overall.

[Nick]

RoF v1 is a good game, nothing wrong with it at all. However RoF v2 is even better.

regards,
Nick

[martin goddard]

If they were not radically different they would not be re-written. I could just give out an amendment sheet for free nice chap that I am.(?)

[Smiley Miley 66]

I agree with John, but don't disagree with Martin. I ve not played BB for a while, but the new BB I will have to do half bases and possibly change my casualty bases ?
Grids are good for certain games systems. PBI I play a lot, as most people know, and yes I think this is the best version of the lot. The scenery generator system I have issues with ?
But let's get back on track. Yes v1 of RoF I enjoyed and V2 I enjoy to. Yes the grids stop some horrible 'maneovers' going on. But grids can make the game feel like a glorified Board game
This is where I agree with John. Yes there are some short comings in BB, which we learnt while doing Samurai and even CWB ( Please Don't Grid this game ) and vikings which needed to be included with the BB rules
Yes Grids do have there place in gaming and RoF ECW gaming because of the troop movements does allow for the game to be gridded even BB  can be said the same too, but it also causes restrictions at the same time. This is what people complain about.
PBI gets away with this and it's stable mate SCW,(when we getting a WW1 version of this game )
I even think AK 47 might benefit with grids as well ? ( that's my opinion
Miles

[Leman (Andy)]

As I recall the original PP ACW rules were gridded and CWB came along later as an non-gridded game.

[martin goddard]

That is a very long memory Andy.

[Nick]

All my favourite RFCM rules use grids.
Must admit I didn't think I would like them at first.
Nick

[Leman (Andy)]

That is a very long memory Andy.

Still got my copy, plus the dead animals, old man, fence post etc. that were used to mark intersections before the appearance of gridded cloths.

[Solentneil]

Thanks for the warm welcome and for all your posts on this issue. The main thing about V1 I liked was the AP system, which has gone in version 2. As for grids, I guess it is persnal preference, but I have never had an issue with measuring or an opponant measuring. Plus00 I spent a lot of time painting my figures and like the table to look good. Grid lines on the table goes against this. I am new to the forum, but not to wargaming. I was at Cheriton too last weekend.
Neil

[martin goddard]

Nice that you are here Neil. We will try to win you over to grids but you can alternatively use the rules as they are but measure moves in multiple of 6" instead of multiple of squares.  Many players here have come up with subtle ways of showing a grid. Do see the photos of Western games to see how a little dot is used.

[Stewart 46A]

Welcome Neil, most of my mats with squares are very subtle and once you have scenery and figures out blend in even more.