Perusing WSS 79 again - to re-read Richard Clarkes column I came across Jamie Gordons pice on using "old games" as he puts it . This was interesting to say the least as this chaps take on the hobby is a little odd in some ways- not wrong indeed precisly the opposite and possibly its me thats out of step here. but he highlighted- perhaps unintentionally the apparently speedy turnover in rulesets in some wargamers lives. Now I can understand this for tournament players- exactly as he put is but for the rest of us why? - At a club for instance who decides what is and is not playable- try any of that nonsense at the TWATS and the second word you would here would be "OFF!" We'll use the set of rules that the umpire for that game deems appropriate to the period .
As it happens I've bought 3 sets of rules so far this year- which for me is unprecdented." Pike and Shotte", "To Defy a King " and very much for a laugh 7TV and yes I've got Pussy Galore on the painting table !(though strictly speaking I suppose its Kathy Gale ! )
The current constant outporing of new rules and supplements is reaching saturation point and it struck me as I read the article that most of the rules I use and abuse for my wargames are a bit long in the tooth .
Leaving aside those in "wargaming Classics"- Grant , Charge and suchlike Many of the sets I use have been around since the 1980s if not earlier.
Tactica- for Ancients- still have not found a better set
Warfare in the Age of Reason for the 18th century - not perfect by any means but not bad either and very flexible- which is the point.still in print
British Grenadier- for the AWI- still in print this so does it really count as old?
Combined Arms- for modern warfare-a 1980s set out of print.
Have Cold War Commander too, more recent , but its a bit "gamesey" and lightweight- this being of course a major trend with more recently published rules.
The Free downloadable ACW set on the OGUK website is unashamadly Featherstonian- and use for 40mm games
What , once again struck me about the piece was that there wasalmost no talk of "periods" only "games" . What I might ask if you consider the rules you have chosen for a given period to be the epitome of perfection - highly doubtfull in my case but I'll only replace a set I'm using if the replacements are "better" in some major way . Again the article is in in "gaming" territory rather than "pure" wargaming.( I may have bought a copy of 7TV but its not wargaming its just lightweight fluff for a bit of a laugh once in a while.)
The main thrust of Mr Gordons piece was really to push old GW stuff so has no place on my blog but his basic point is well made it doesn't have to be all singing all dancing eye candy to still have a place in our pantheon. Mind you I did find "Rustic charm" just a tad patronising - as if somehow the eye candy was now more important than the actual content. But perhaps he didn't mean it that way .... did he?