Stop Rules Disputes Killing Your Game

Nothing kills the excitement of a tabletop battle quite like a lengthy rules argument. In my latest video, I explore some practical ways that historical wargamers can resolve disagreements quickly while keeping the game enjoyable. If you haven't watched it yet, you can find the full video below, but I wanted to expand on some of the ideas here because rules disputes are something I expect almost every wargamer has encountered at some point.

Every ruleset has grey areas. No matter how carefully a game has been written, unusual situations will eventually arise where two players interpret the same rule differently. Sometimes it's something as simple as whether a unit can see another unit through a particular piece of terrain, while at other times it might involve charge distances, cover, movement or some obscure interaction between two different rules. It can happen with virtually any ruleset, because no rulebook can anticipate every possible situation that two imaginative wargamers might create on a tabletop.

Where it becomes particularly frustrating is during a friendly game where the objective is simply to have an enjoyable afternoon with friends. Most of us aren't sitting down around the table because there's a trophy at stake or because we're desperately trying to climb a tournament ranking. We're there to play with our miniatures, enjoy the history, tell a story and spend time with other people who share the same hobby. When a fifteen minute argument develops over whether a regiment is half an inch inside or outside a particular boundary, that social experience can disappear remarkably quickly.

One way of dealing with these situations is to agree before the game that the Rule of Cool has a place in your gaming. Rather than automatically choosing the interpretation that provides the greatest tactical advantage, players can agree to favour the outcome that creates the most exciting, dramatic or historically satisfying moment. Imagine a cavalry unit charging an enemy whose flank is exposed by the tiniest of margins. You could spend several minutes measuring every angle and debating the wording of the rules, or you could simply decide that the cavalry has caught them in a dramatic charge and see what happens. The important thing isn't that one player has gained an advantage. It's that you've created a memorable moment that everyone can enjoy.

Another option is to involve an impartial third party. If another club member, game organiser or spectator is nearby, explain the situation to them and ask for a ruling. The key is agreeing beforehand that whatever decision they make will be accepted without further debate. This can be particularly useful because sometimes two players become so invested in their own interpretation that neither can see a way out of the disagreement. An outside opinion can break that deadlock almost instantly.

For situations where there simply isn't time to find an answer, there's always the dice off. Roll a die, decide which result corresponds to which interpretation and carry on playing. You can always look up the correct answer after the game. It might sound rather arbitrary, but if the alternative is spending twenty minutes searching through a rulebook while everyone else waits, a thirty second temporary solution can be far more valuable. The same principle applies to what I think of as the sanity check. If the rules technically allow something that makes absolutely no sense within the historical setting, perhaps common sense should take precedence. If a smoothbore musket can somehow fire through the corner of a solid brick building or target a unit through dense woodland because of an unintended interaction between rules, most historical gamers would probably recognise that something has gone wrong.

Another useful principle is giving the benefit of the doubt to the defender or the non active player when a situation is genuinely too close to call. If you're arguing over a charge distance that is right on the limit, or whether a unit is fully protected by cover, having a pre agreed convention can prevent the discussion from becoming personal. Similarly, there are situations where splitting the difference makes more sense than choosing between two extreme interpretations. If nobody can agree whether a hedge provides full cover or no cover at all, perhaps treat it as light cover for that particular turn and carry on. It isn't necessarily the perfect answer, but it is a fair compromise that keeps the battle moving.

One of the approaches I particularly like is making a temporary ruling and noting the question down for later. Instead of stopping the game to search through FAQs, forums and old posts from the rules designer, write down the problem and carry on. Once the game has finished, you can investigate it properly and establish what the rules actually say. If the official answer still isn't clear, your group can agree on a house rule for future games. Over time, these little decisions can become part of the shared understanding within a gaming group and prevent the same disagreement from occurring repeatedly.

Ultimately, all of these approaches come back to one simple principle: the flow of the game matters more than the exact ruling. That's not an argument for ignoring rules or allowing one player to take advantage of another. It's about recognising the difference between a genuinely important rules issue and a minor ambiguity that doesn't deserve to bring an entire game to a halt. A quick decision made in good faith keeps everyone engaged, whereas a prolonged argument can destroy the atmosphere for everyone around the table.

For me, this is particularly important because historical wargaming is about much more than rules. It's about history, miniatures, painting, terrain, modelling, storytelling and, perhaps most importantly, spending time with other people. The rules provide the framework that allows the game to happen, but they shouldn't become more important than the people sitting around the table. Some players will naturally prefer a very strict interpretation of the rules, while others will be much more comfortable with a flexible, narrative approach. Neither is necessarily wrong. The important thing is that everyone understands what sort of game they're sitting down to play.

Every club and gaming group will inevitably develop its own culture and its own way of dealing with disagreements. Some will prefer an umpire, others may use dice, while some groups will simply make a ruling and look it up afterwards. What matters is finding something that works for your group and, ideally, agreeing on the approach before the inevitable rules question appears. Because let's face it, the rules question is coming. It always does. Somewhere on that beautifully prepared tabletop, surrounded by lovingly painted miniatures and carefully constructed terrain, there is a tiny ambiguity waiting to derail the battle. The trick isn't eliminating those moments because that's probably impossible. The trick is making sure they remain moments rather than turning into twenty minute arguments.

So how does your gaming group deal with rules disputes? Do you have a house rule, an umpire or perhaps a completely different method for breaking a deadlock? Have you ever used a dice roll to settle an argument, or do you prefer to make a temporary ruling and check the rules afterwards? I'd love to hear about your experiences and the approaches that have worked for you, because some of the best solutions to these little problems come from the wargaming community itself.

Build, Expand, Conquer! A Look at Swords & Stones

A couple of weeks ago I shared something I don't do particularly often on the channel, an unboxing video. The game in question was Swords & Stones: Dark Days, an ambitious fantasy tabletop strategy game that had been sent to me to take a look at. Having now had some time to sit down with the beta rulebook and read through it properly, I thought it was time to share some of my thoughts on what is an interesting and rather different approach to tabletop gaming. I've also put together a video looking at the rules in more detail, but I wanted this article to stand on its own as an introduction to what Swords & Stones is trying to achieve.

What attracted me to the game in the first place was the idea behind it. Swords & Stones is inspired by classic real time strategy computer games such as Age of Empires, Stronghold and Battle for Middle-earth, but instead of sitting in front of a computer screen, you're doing all of this on the tabletop with miniatures, terrain, dice and tokens. As someone who has spent many years playing tabletop wargames, I find that idea particularly interesting because it takes some familiar concepts from computer strategy games and asks whether they can actually work around a table with a group of friends.

The setting is also rather different from your typical fantasy wargame. Rather than starting with established kingdoms and huge armies, the game takes place after a catastrophic flood has effectively destroyed civilisation. You begin with a small group of survivors in a world where food and other resources are scarce, disease is widespread and hostile raiders are never far away. Your first priority is therefore survival and rebuilding rather than immediately marching off to conquer your neighbour.

That is probably the thing that stood out to me most as I worked my way through the rules. This isn't simply a game where you put your army on the table and then spend the next few hours trying to destroy somebody else's army. There is a whole process of building your kingdom around the fighting. You gather resources, construct buildings, recruit units, develop your settlement and expand your influence. Eventually, of course, you're going to have to fight, but the fighting is part of a much bigger picture.

As a long time wargamer, I rather like that approach. One of the things I enjoy about our hobby is the story that develops around a game, and having the ability to build that story from the very beginning of a kingdom's development is an appealing idea. Your army isn't simply appearing on the table fully formed. It is the result of decisions you've made during the game, and those decisions can potentially have consequences several turns later.

The basic turn structure is actually remarkably straightforward. Each turn is divided into three phases: Harvest, Advance, and Move and Combat. During Harvest you collect resources, Advance is where you spend those resources on buildings, units and upgrades, and then Move and Combat is where your forces take to the table and things inevitably start getting rather more violent.

I was pleasantly surprised by how concise the core rules are. Looking through the rulebook, the three basic phases take up only around seventeen pages. The rulebook itself is considerably larger than that, but much of the additional material deals with the various buildings, units, technologies and special rules that come into play as your kingdom develops. I think that's an important distinction because it means you're not necessarily expected to learn everything before you play your first game. You can learn the basics and then gradually discover the more advanced elements as your kingdom grows.

The game also gives players two very different routes to victory. You can win by Sword, which essentially means defeating rival kings or forcing them to surrender, but there is also victory By Stone. This involves constructing a monument and keeping it standing for fifteen turns. I particularly like the inclusion of that second option because it means the game doesn't automatically reward the player who is most aggressive. Someone who prefers a more defensive or economic approach has another way of trying to win, which should make for some interesting strategic decisions.

There are also several factions to choose from in the initial release, each offering a different approach. The Avalonians are technologically advanced and worship a single god, while the Paganites take a rather different path, relying more heavily on martial prowess and being less enthusiastic about technology. Then there are the Damned, who begin as another faction but can embrace dark rituals and necromantic magic. There are plans for additional races and factions as the game develops, so this is clearly intended to be the beginning of something much larger.

Another aspect I find interesting is the flexibility in how the game can be played. Swords & Stones supports solo play, cooperative games and larger competitive games, with the rules designed to accommodate anything from one player through to twelve. That's quite a range, and I think the solo and cooperative options are particularly worth mentioning. Finding a regular group of opponents isn't always easy, so I always think it's a positive when a game gives you more than one way to enjoy it.

The mechanics themselves are also fairly easy to understand. The primary resolution system uses ordinary six sided dice, with two different colours being used for different purposes. Most rolls involve trying to beat a particular target number, with a roll of one being an automatic failure. Combat follows a similarly straightforward process of determining attacks, rolling to hit, rolling to wound and then allowing the target to make its saves. Once a unit has accumulated enough wounds, it is removed from play.

I'm not going to go into the rules in much more detail here because the Swords & Stones Studios YouTube channel has produced a series of excellent tutorial videos that explain the game far better than I could in an article. What I was really interested in when reading the rulebook was how well it was structured, how clearly the mechanics were presented and how easy I thought it would be for a new player to actually get into the game.

On that front, I came away reasonably impressed. The rulebook is clearly laid out and the table of contents are colour coded, which makes finding specific sections relatively straightforward. The introduction does a good job of explaining the setting and the overall concept, while the simple three phase turn gives players a solid foundation on which to build their understanding of the game. The complexity comes as you start adding buildings, technologies, units and special abilities rather than being dumped on you from the very beginning.

That gradual increase in complexity is something I particularly appreciate. I've been playing tabletop games for a very long time and I've certainly encountered rulebooks that seem determined to make you understand every possible situation before you're allowed to move a single miniature. Swords & Stones doesn't appear to take that approach. The basic game is relatively easy to understand, but there is plenty of additional depth waiting for players who want to explore it.

It's also worth mentioning the work that has already gone into developing the game. From my conversations with Luke, it is obvious that Swords & Stones has been in development for quite some time, and feedback from early players has already resulted in changes to both the rules and the miniatures. There are also plans for additional buildings, factions and other content as the game develops.

For those with a 3D printer, there is another interesting incentive. The existing buildings, terrain pieces and tokens are being made available as free STL files as part of the crowdfunding campaign, with more content planned for the future. For a hobby that increasingly combines traditional miniature painting with 3D printing and terrain building, I think that's a very appealing addition.

Ultimately, what interests me most about Swords & Stones is the ambition behind it. It is trying to combine miniature wargaming with the kingdom building, resource management and progression that many of us will recognise from classic RTS computer games. Whether it can successfully translate that experience to the tabletop remains to be seen, but having now read the rules, I think there is certainly enough here to make me curious about playing it.

The next big step is the Gamefound crowdfunding campaign, which launches on 26th August. Like any crowdfunding project, its future depends upon reaching its funding goal, but if it does succeed then it looks as though Swords & Stones Studios has plenty of ideas for where the game can go next.

If you'd like to know more, I'd recommend taking a look at the Swords & Stones Studios YouTube channel, where you'll find the tutorial videos explaining the game in much more detail. You can also keep an eye out for the Gamefound campaign when it launches. Whether you're interested in fantasy miniatures, tabletop strategy games, 3D printing, kingdom building or simply seeing somebody try something a little different with our hobby, I think Swords & Stones is certainly worth watching.

And for me, that's probably the most interesting thing about it. We have plenty of established fantasy wargames to choose from, but it's always good to see somebody trying to take the hobby in a slightly different direction. Whether Swords & Stones ultimately becomes a game that develops a large following will depend on the players, the community and the support it receives, but the foundations certainly look promising.

How to Teach Wargame Rules Easily

Introducing new rules to a tabletop wargaming group can often be more challenging than learning the rules themselves. Every hobbyist has likely experienced the moment where excitement for a new system meets hesitation from other players who aren’t familiar with the period, the mechanics, or simply don’t know what to expect. This video explores practical, proven ways to bridge that gap and turn reluctant players into engaged participants.

Rather than overwhelming players with complex explanations upfront, one of the most effective approaches is to start with simplified or “quick start” versions of the rules. By focusing only on the core mechanics such as movement, shooting, and combat, players can begin interacting with the game immediately. This helps build confidence and understanding through play, rather than through long explanations that are quickly forgotten once dice start rolling.

Narrative is another powerful tool. When rules are embedded within a story-driven scenario, they become easier to understand and far more memorable. Instead of thinking in abstract terms, players are drawn into situations such as desperate defensive actions, surprise attacks, or critical battlefield objectives. This transforms mechanics into meaning, helping players connect emotionally with what is happening on the tabletop.

Visual presentation also plays a crucial role. A well-prepared table with clear terrain, organised units, and accessible reference materials can immediately capture attention and reduce cognitive load. Combined with demonstration-style teaching, where rules are introduced as they become relevant during play, this creates a natural learning flow that feels intuitive rather than instructional.

Mentorship and table atmosphere are equally important. A relaxed, welcoming environment where mistakes are treated as part of the learning process encourages experimentation and reduces anxiety. Experienced players can guide newcomers without overwhelming them, offering support while still allowing space for independent decision-making.

Historical context, when used lightly and effectively, can also help bring meaning to scenarios, while feedback from players ensures that teaching methods continue to improve over time. Ultimately, introducing new wargame rules is not just about transferring knowledge, but about creating engaging experiences that players want to return to. When done well, even complex systems become accessible, enjoyable, and memorable.

Should History Decide who Wins?

One of the things I enjoy most about making these videos is that so many of them begin with questions from viewers. This week's discussion was inspired by Tony Wentworth, who asked a deceptively simple question: should historical wargame rules do everything possible to produce the "correct" historical result?

Most of us want our games to feel authentic. We want armies to behave as they did historically, commanders to face the same challenges, and the battlefield to reward historically sensible tactics. But at the same time, we're still playing a game. If every battle is predetermined because history tells us who won, where does that leave the players?

My own view is that a good ruleset should always be capable of reproducing the historical outcome. If the rules accurately represent troop quality, command, morale, terrain and weapon effectiveness, then the historical result should be one possible outcome. The important word, though, is "possible" rather than "guaranteed."

History is full of battles that seem almost impossible to recreate without some additional help from the rules. Agincourt relied heavily on terrible ground conditions, French overconfidence and the effectiveness of English longbowmen. Thermopylae depended almost entirely on geography until betrayal changed everything. Rorke's Drift was shaped by carefully prepared defences, disciplined rifle fire, leadership, fatigue and the pauses between successive Zulu attacks.

Without acknowledging those unique historical circumstances, generic tabletop rules often produce results that look nothing like the real battles. That's where carefully designed scenarios and special rules become valuable. They shouldn't dictate the outcome, but they should recreate the conditions that made the historical outcome possible.

For me, that's where the real challenge of historical game design lies. A scenario should encourage players to make the same kinds of decisions their historical counterparts faced, while still leaving enough uncertainty that skill, judgement and luck can produce different results. After all, if players have no meaningful choices, they're simply acting out history rather than exploring it.

That's what makes this such an interesting subject to discuss. There probably isn't a single right answer. Some players prefer tightly scripted historical recreations, while others enjoy seeing history take an entirely different direction once the first dice are rolled. Wherever you fall on that spectrum, I think we can all agree on one thing: the best historical games are the ones that leave both players feeling they had meaningful decisions to make and a genuine chance to influence the battle.

I'd love to know where you stand. Should historical rules prioritise historical accuracy above everything else, or should player agency always come first? Join the discussion in the comments below and let me know your thoughts.

Review of Ad Glorium-Et Ultra: Wargame Rules for 20th Century Conflicts

If you’ve ever felt that modern tabletop wargaming rules can be overly complex, Ad Glorium – Et Ultra! might be exactly what you’re looking for. In my latest video, I take a detailed look at this compact and affordable ruleset, designed to cover 20th-century warfare from the trenches of the First World War through to speculative World War Three scenarios.

What makes this system stand out is its clear design philosophy: keep things fast, fun, and simple, while still capturing the feel of combined-arms warfare. Rather than getting bogged down in excessive detail, the rules focus on playability—something that will immediately appeal to hobbyists who prefer getting models on the table rather than buried in charts and calculations.

In the video, I break the rules down into several key areas. First, I look at the structure of the rulebook itself—how easy it is to navigate, how clearly the information is presented, and whether it supports players during gameplay. I then move on to the mechanics, examining the core D6 system, the role of morale, and the Command, Control & Communications system, which adds an interesting layer of tactical decision-making through limited-use “extra turn” opportunities.

Another important aspect I explore is the balance between clarity and complexity. Modern warfare can be a daunting period to game, with a huge range of equipment and organisational structures. However, Ad Glorium – Et Ultra! takes a deliberately simplified approach, grouping similar units together and focusing on battlefield effect rather than technical specifications. This makes it far more accessible, particularly for players who may be new to the period.

I also discuss the wider ecosystem surrounding the rules. While this is very much an “artisan” project rather than a big commercial release, there are still useful supporting materials available, including free scenario books and reference sheets. Combined with its low price point, this makes it a very approachable entry into modern wargaming.

Ultimately, this isn’t a ruleset trying to simulate every possible detail—it’s a flexible framework designed to let you explore the period in your own way. Whether you’re a veteran historical wargamer or someone curious about branching into 20th-century conflicts, this review should give you a clear idea of what to expect and whether Ad Glorium – Et Ultra! deserves a place on your table.

Who is really in command?

Command and control is one of the most important (and often misunderstood) elements of WWII tabletop wargaming. It’s the invisible force that determines whether your carefully planned attack unfolds like a textbook operation… or collapses into chaos the moment the dice hit the table. In my latest video, I take a deep dive into how four popular rule sets approach this critical aspect of gameplay: Flames of War 4th Edition, Bolt Action 3rd Edition, Chain of Command 2, and Rapid Fire Reloaded.

Each of these games tackles the same historical problem (how commanders influence the battlefield), but they do so in very different ways. Flames of War emphasises formation cohesion and the gradual breakdown of organised forces under pressure. Bolt Action leans into cinematic unpredictability with its order dice system, where momentum can shift in an instant. Chain of Command focuses on the human element, placing leaders at the centre of every decision and making their positioning critical to success. Meanwhile, Rapid Fire Reloaded zooms out to a larger scale, where command becomes a question of coordination, distance, and maintaining control across an entire battlefield.

What emerges from this comparison is not a “best” system, but a set of distinct perspectives on how WWII combat functioned. Each ruleset highlights a different layer of warfare—chaos, leadership, or organisation—and in doing so, shapes the entire feel of the game. The same miniatures and the same historical scenario can feel completely different depending on how command and control are handled.

For tabletop wargamers, this is where the hobby becomes especially rewarding. Exploring different rules isn’t just about mechanics; it’s about engaging with different interpretations of history. These systems invite us to consider how real commanders coped with confusion, limited communication, and the pressure to make decisions in the heat of battle.

Can one ruleset cover 2,000 years of warfare?

Historical tabletop wargamers are always on the lookout for rule systems that strike the right balance between accessibility, historical flavour, and tactical depth. In my latest video, I take a closer look at two rulebooks from the growing On Bloody Ground series by WIP Games and Miniatures: The Wars of the Roses and The Punic Wars. Written by father-and-son design team David and Daniel Toone, the On Bloody Ground system has steadily expanded over the past few years. What began as a small set of rules covering the Norman Conquest and the Reconquista has now grown into a range of more than a dozen books covering multiple historical periods—from the American Civil War to Caesar’s campaigns and the English Civil War.

At the heart of the system is a rules engine inspired by the classic Warhammer Ancient Battles style of ranked combat, but streamlined to avoid unnecessary complexity. Instead of introducing gimmicks or novelty mechanics, the designers focus on clear, traditional tabletop wargaming principles: movement, morale, formations, and decisive combat between units. The result is a system that feels familiar to experienced wargamers while remaining accessible for newcomers.

In the video, I explore how these mechanics translate into two very different historical periods. The Wars of the Roses brings late medieval English warfare to the tabletop, where blocks of billmen, men-at-arms, and longbowmen clash in brutal infantry engagements led by ambitious nobles. The Punic Wars, on the other hand, shift the action to the ancient Mediterranean, where Roman legions face the diverse armies of Carthage, complete with Iberian warriors, Numidian cavalry, and the ever-popular war elephants.

One interesting challenge for me when reviewing these rules was scale. The system assumes individually based figures (often in 28mm scale) grouped together on movement trays. My own collections for both periods are quite different: 6mm armies that are permanently multi-based. In the video, I explore whether the system can be adapted to work with smaller-scale miniatures and alternative basing styles without losing the intended gameplay experience.

The answer, happily, is yes. With a few simple adjustments, the rules proved flexible enough to accommodate different collections while still delivering engaging and decisive tabletop battles. That adaptability is one of the strengths of the On Bloody Ground system, making it suitable for a wide range of players and miniature scales.

The Rulebook Trap: Fluff vs Substance

One of the interesting quirks of the tabletop wargaming hobby is that our rulebooks often serve two very different purposes at the same time. On the one hand, they’re instruction manuals that explain the mechanics of the game. On the other hand, they’re often part history book, part lore compendium, and sometimes even part art book designed to inspire players. That combination raises an interesting question: how much fluff should a wargame rulebook really contain

Today, my video explores the balance between background material and rules mechanics in tabletop wargaming rulebooks. Some gamers love diving into rich lore and historical explanations, while others just want to find the rules quickly and get miniatures onto the table. That tension between storytelling and practicality can shape the entire reading experience of a rulebook.

The discussion becomes even more interesting when you compare fantasy and science fiction games with historical wargames. In fictional settings, everything about the universe has been created by the authors, from the factions and technology to the basic assumptions about how the world works. Lore isn’t just decorative in those games; it helps players understand the setting itself. Without background material explaining the world, the motivations of its factions, and the nature of its technology or magic, the rules can feel disconnected from the setting.

Historical wargames approach the problem from the opposite direction. The setting already exists in the real world, and players have access to countless books, documentaries, and historical studies if they want to explore the period in more detail. That means rulebooks don’t necessarily need to carry the same burden of explaining the world. A little context can provide flavour and help explain design choices, but too much history can start to feel like unnecessary page filler when players already have other resources available.

Of course, the balance isn’t always easy to strike. Too much background material can make a rulebook difficult to navigate during a game, while too little flavour can leave the system feeling dry and mechanical. Somewhere between those extremes lies the sweet spot where rules clarity and thematic immersion support each other perfectly.

Do House Rules Ruin Wargames?

One of the most passionate debates in tabletop wargaming isn’t about which tank was best or whether Napoleonic squares are overrated. It’s about house rules — those little tweaks, rewrites, and “we do it this way here” moments that sneak into almost every gaming group sooner or later. In this latest video, I dig into the question that every wargamer eventually faces: do house rules enhance the experience, or do they quietly undermine it?

For many of us, tinkering with rules feels completely natural. We don’t just play historical games — we study history, obsess over specific battles, and get emotionally invested in moments when everything could have gone another way. When a ruleset doesn’t quite allow for that, the temptation to adjust it is almost irresistible. Maybe a unit should be tougher, maybe morale should matter more, or maybe the official army list doesn’t quite reflect what actually fought on that day in 1942 or 1815. So we change things, often with the best of intentions.

But rules aren’t just words on a page. Underneath every good game is a web of probabilities, balance decisions, and design choices that are usually invisible to the player. When we start altering things, even in small ways, we might be tugging at threads we don’t fully understand. A tiny bonus here or a new rule there can slowly warp how a game plays, sometimes without anyone noticing until it’s too late.

The video also examines the individuals behind the rules. Designers bring their own vision of history to the table, based on research, playtesting, and compromise. Changing their work can sometimes sharpen a game, but it can also erase parts of what made it special in the first place. And, just to keep us humble, there’s always the risk that we, as players, might not understand a period quite as well as we think we do.

At the same time, house rules aren’t the villains of this story. They can be powerful tools for learning, creativity, and personalising a game to suit your group. They encourage deeper engagement with both history and game mechanics, and they let us explore those wonderful “what if?” moments that make wargaming so compelling.

This video isn’t about declaring a winner in the house rules war. It’s about exploring the tension between creativity and consistency, between personal vision and shared systems, and how that tension shapes the way we enjoy our hobby. If you’ve ever rewritten a rule, ignored an army list, or argued passionately over a single modifier, this one is for you.

How to Hook a New Wargamer with Just One Game

Every wargamer remembers their first real battle. The first time the dice rolled just right, a unit did something heroic, and they realised this was more than a game. It’s that spark, that sense of discovery, that we try to recreate when introducing someone new to the hobby. But what exactly makes a good set of introductory wargame rules?

In my latest video, I explore that question in depth. A subscriber asked, “What should we look for in a set of wargame rules when you want to introduce a new player to the hobby?” It’s a deceptively simple question that gets to the heart of what makes tabletop wargaming so special. From clarity and pacing to theme and presentation, a great starter game needs to be approachable but still exciting. The best rules make sense as you play, keep both players engaged, and encourage moments of drama and laughter. Whether it’s Bolt Action, What a Tanker, or Chain of Command, the goal is always the same: to create memorable stories and share the joy of miniature wargaming.

The video also touches on the importance of presentation and community. The way we teach, play, and welcome new players says as much about the hobby as the rules themselves. Wargaming, after all, isn’t just about rolling dice. It’s about creativity, connection, and storytelling. If you’re a historical wargamer, painter, or just someone who loves the hobby, this discussion is for you. Join me as we explore what makes a first game great.

Breaking Point: Why Armies Stop Fighting

Most of us have played games that just go on too long. The last few turns feel like a slog, both sides hanging on by a thread but still fighting when, historically, any real army would have called it quits. In real battles, soldiers didn’t fight to the death. They broke when morale failed — when fatigue, fear, and chaos overcame training and leadership.

That idea of what keeps soldiers in the fight sits at the heart of this week’s video, where I look at how different wargames handle morale, resolve, and fatigue. We often use “morale” as a catch-all term, but it really covers everything from discipline and leadership to exhaustion and shock. It’s the hidden mechanic behind every victory and every collapse.

In Chain of Command, morale works on two levels. Units suffer shock as firefights wear them down, while the entire platoon has a Force Morale that drops as losses mount. When it hits zero, the fight’s over. It’s elegant and tense, making battles feel alive.

Test of Resolve takes a broader view. Its English Civil War battles hinge on “resolve” — a measure of determination that slips steadily away. Early on, units can recover, but once the army’s resolve starts cracking, collapse comes fast.

Meanwhile, Clash of Spears ties fatigue and morale together. Every action, from running to fighting, adds fatigue, but seeing comrades flee or die adds even more. The result is a wonderfully organic system where armies don’t shatter all at once — they slowly crumble, just like in history.

Across these games, the message is clear: morale isn’t just a number, it’s the soul of the battle. Understanding how different designers approach it can change the way you see your tabletop wars.

Watch the full video to explore how realism, psychology, and playability collide when wargamers try to capture that crucial question: what really keeps soldiers fighting?

Casualty Recovery: Essential or Pointless?

One of the most common mechanics in tabletop wargaming is casualty removal. A figure is hit, it fails a roll, and it’s gone from the battlefield. It’s a simple and familiar mechanic, but some rulesets take the idea further by including medics, casualty recovery, and the unpredictable nature of battlefield survival. In my latest video, I take a closer look at how different games model these elements and what they add to our tabletop experiences.

If you’re interested in how tabletop wargames represent the human side of battle, and how these mechanics affect both playability and immersion, this is a discussion you won’t want to miss.

Learning & Teaching New Rules

How do you learn a new set of rules, and more importantly how do you then teach it to a group of new players? 

You've found a great set of rules, perfect for that new project. But what is the best way to learn them? And once you have 'mastered' the rules, what is the best way to introduce them to a group of players? This week's talking point tries to address both questions.

 

From Warhammer to Historical Wargaming: Finding the right rules

How does the Warhammer player branch out from Games Workshop's systems to find historical wargaming rules from the thousands of titles available? There are three essential questions you must ask yourself that will help narrow the options available and make it easier to find the right set of rules for you.

 

Test of Resolve: Deep dive rules review

My long overdue review and flip-through of the Test of Resolve rules is finally here. Test of Resolve is a set of rules designed for refighting the dynastic struggle in England between 1455 and 1487, known as The Wars of the Roses. This is a card-driven system which produces exciting and unpredictable tabletop conflicts. 

 

Rules Review: The 1879 Anglo-Zulu War by Richard Tory

Just because a set of wargame rules are old and complicated does not mean they have no value. 'The 1879 Zulu War' by Richard Tory is over 40 years old but Is still a fascinating and useful reference book with plenty of data and ideas in it that can be worked into your own rules. If nothing else it is a very interesting read and shows just how far rules design has come in four decades. 

 

They Died for Glory: Rules flip-through and Review

They Died for Glory is a set of rules written specifically for wargaming the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71. This turning point in the development of modern warfare can be dramatically recreated on the game table with this easy-to-learn ruleset. Designed for 15mm figures the rules can accommodate larger or smaller scales and make refighting huge battles possible for any wargamer.

Clarity verses Inspiration: The Pursuit of Precision in Wargame Rules

All wargame rules are a compromise between Clarity and Inspiration. Getting the balance right can be very difficult, and getting it wrong can lead to endless confusion.

Casualty Rates in Wargames

My Sunday video from last week...which I inexplicably forgot to publish on the blog!

Are the casualty rates in most wargame rules unrealistically high? Or do mechanisms such as figure removal represent a more complex picture of declining unit effectiveness?

La bataille de la mission impossible: A WWI battle report.

I've been very busy with home DIY recently but I've reached the point where I could take the day off for a game with my fellow Rejects down the Shed-o-War. So it was with great eagerness that I arrived at Stuart's on Sunday for whatever game he was running. World War One and his in-house ruleset was the order of the day and I was initially very happy with that because we have had some cracking games with these rules and his 6mm figures. Of course, I hadn't factored in being beaten before the game had even started by the scenario he presented us with and by the impossible French objectives. That's not to say I didn't have a good time of course (the usual banter and joviality were on top form as always), but having an outside chance to achieve victory, as opposed to none, would have made it better.

As is our way we started with a pre-game cuppa and picked sides randomly. Myself, Richard, and Steve were the French as this is an early war set of rules, we would be attacking the Germans across largely open countryside. Ray and Surjit played the Germans and while they were outnumbered about 3:1 their job was to hold as many objectives as they could by the end of the game. They started holding 24 points worth of objectives such as crossroads, buildings, woods, and hills, and it was the French player's job to take at least half those points by the end of the game. However, all but three of the objective points were in the last third of the 6' deep table. his meant that the French would have to move at double speed, unopposed if they were to even reach those objectives, let alone have time to fight for them. There was a dice roll at the beginning of the game for a French Double move (the Germans rolled to see if they could react to our sudden attack...they did, and we lost the extra move turn) but even that still left most of the objectives out of our reach, even without German troops trying to delay us!

I have to say at this point that I don't think this is a fault of Stuart's rules (although more on that in a moment) but of the scenario design. It's a pity because we had a great time and our artillery fire was significantly more effective than the German players for most of the game. In these rules, the artillery roll one d10 per gun to hit (hitting on a 5+ in the open, 7+ in soft cover, and 9+ in hardcover), and for each successful hit, the player then rolls two d10s for casualties. Rolling a 10 on the casualty dice counts as a double kill and forces the target unit to make a Courage test. I can say without any hubris that I was the uncontested master of the 10s throughout the game (my dice rolls were charmed) and still, it counted for nothing because the game was being decided on objectives captured and all those in front of me were too far away. And of course, there was also the small matter of the German defenders trying to slow down our advance.

This brings me to the one single bone of contention in the rules for this game. Stuart is of course tweaking and refining his WWI rules with every game and following our last WWI game, he made a small change to the Melee rules that I think was probably a mistake. I would say that of course because myself and Steve found the change to our mutual disadvantage, but let me explain and maybe you can draw your own conclusions. 

Melee is decided by a series of d10s. One for each base of figures still in play. Additional dice can be added for defending favorable ground, charging, etc. In addition, defenders usually hit on a lower dice roll than attackers so the 'favorable ground' bit is effectively applied twice. So for example, four attackers attack four defenders in a slit trench which is classed as light cover. The defender would get four d10s for troops, and +1d10 for favourable ground. The defender hits on a 6+. The attacker meanwhile gets four dice for troops, plus one for charging, but hits on an 8+. So in a straight fight, the defender in cover has an advantage. (There are other dice that can be added for trained or specialist troops but for the purposes of keeping this example simple, I'm leaving them out).

The wiley attacker will therefore bring as much firepower to bare on the defender before going into the attack. This may mean targeting the position with artillery or weakening the defender with rifle and machine gun fire before getting stuck in with Boyonets. In Fig 2 below, the defender has been whittled down before the attacker charges in. Now the defender only has three dice to the attacker's five, although the hit differential remains the same with the defender hitting on a 6+ and the attacker on an 8+. 

So the attacker is incentivized to bring as much overwhelming manpower to bare as possible, to swamp the defenders and take the position. So in Fig 3 below both the attackers and defenders have taken casualties but now the attacker brings two companies to swamp the defenders. In this example, the defender gets 3 dice for figures and one for the softcover hitting on a 6+, while the defender gets 6 dice for troops plus one for charging, still hitting on an 8+. The attacker still has a hard job but by bringing lots of troops to the melee, and with a bit of luck on the dice, stands a chance at winning the melee and taking the position. 

Now we get to the rule change that caused such consternation on the French side. In a previous game, the 'ganging up' tactic seen in Fig 3 upset the defending players and much moaning ensued. Stuart decided to change the rules meaning that only stands in base-to-base contact could be counted in the melee. In this example that would reduce the attackers' dice by three, making the assault significantly harder to win despite outnumbering the defenders 2:1. 

Now consider this extreme example in Fig 4. The defender has been battered by artillery and denuded by rifle and machine guns until only one of the original four defenders in the company remains. Meanwhile, the attackers have crossed the open ground unharmed and now attack the position with two full-strength companies. The recent rule change means the defender gets 1 dice for troops and one for the softcover, hitting on a 6+. Most of the attacker's troops are discounted so they only get two dice for troops in direct contact with the enemy and one for charging, hitting on an 8+. Despite being outnumbered 8:1 a defender in soft cover still has an advantage in melee. 

At this point is worth pointing out that in the open the cover advantage falls away and both sides would be hitting on a 6+, but even so, there is little point in trying to overwhelm an enemy position under the new rule changes as all 'additional' bases are ignored. 

As I am writing this I appreciate this may look like I'm really worked up about this (having written a few hundred words with supporting graphics) but I want to repeat that on the whole we enjoy Stuarts WWI rules and personally I had a great day playing this game. Putting aside the unwinnable victory conditions (every umpire can have an off-day when creating a scenario) my only criticism was this rule change, and I believe Stuart is giving some thought to changing it back to how it was. Hopefully, this article will help convince him to do just that before our next game!