There's a mainstream of commercially published wargaming rules, but Trebian is an exponent of the self-publishing, houseruling and modelling type of wargamers. The questions will therefor not apply to all wargamers.
Is there anything that Featherstone did that ranks up with these? |
- You've read at least one book by Donald Featherstone
- You've tried to game a period for which there are no figures.
- You've played in a game using two way radios or field telephones.
- You've taken part in a games day or tournament
- You've called down fire on your own forces.
- You've done at least one plastic kit conversion
Samurai battles ruleset I wrote together with Dick Bax. Took a bit of digging to find my own copy back |
- You've written a set of rules that have been played by people without you there
- You've started to amend a set of rules two turns into a game (or less).
- You've completely misunderstood at least part of a set of rules.
- You've built your own wargames table.
- You've submitted at least one wargames magazine article that wasn't a battle report
- You've at least tried to play one of those enormous SPI games (Campaign for North Africa, for example)
- You've run a participation game at a wargames show.
- You've won a wargames campaign by doing something completely different
- You've helped to run a wargames club.
- You've dogmatically insisted you're done with a period....then gone back to it.
My three shelves of WWI books and half shelf of air warfare books. Almost all collected within the last 5 years |
- You've played in a command post exercise game without enough space to unfold the map
- You've been stiffled at least once on TMP
- You've taken part in mega-game
Umpiring in Long Live Death, megagame of the Spanish Civil War. Dramatic win for the Republicans |
- You've umpired in a mega-game
- You have your own blog
See also my answers to Phil Broeders' original questions and to Lee Hadley's extension.
I've enjoyed reading your answers to these J. I think for me the original list by Phil has sparked feelings not dissimilar to your own. Insofar as I see these more as defining what sort of wargamer you are, as opposed to whether you are a 'proper wargamer'. You could view them as being a bit elitist and snobby if you were being harsh. My Sunday Sermon is due to go live in a few minutes I think.
ReplyDeleteHi FG, enjoyed your Sunday Sermon and think we are indeed largely agreed. There isva sensevof elitism in the use of the word proper. I think Phil was being tongue in cheek.
Delete"Proper" is an interesting choice of word, as it implies that if the points don't apply to you in some way you're not "proper".
DeleteNow, you can wear that as a badge of honour or you can conclude that you've over analysed Phil B's use of English. I suspect in my case it was the latter. However it did give me a chance to talk about what I find interesting in wargaming.
@ J de Jong and Trebian, I absolutely have over analysed Phil's use of English, and I've made it clear in my article. Does't mean that the thoughts it inspired aren't valid, even if that wasn't Phil's original intention. More than anything I guess, with me at least, it started a piece of introspection that led me to look at the way I view other hobbyists and question my own beliefs. From that perspective for me it was more than just a tongue in cheek piece of humour, even if it wasn't intended to be more than that.
DeleteWhat can I say, I'm a deep, dark and serious individual!!! :P