Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Just a topic for discussion.

Looking at starting up War of the Ring in the near future, and it goe me thinking, how many would you say is the minimum number of opponents to really give a new system a fair try?

For War of the Ring, there's about 4 to 5 of us wanting to start, and we just need to agree a date/time to start collecting. This to me seems to be a fairly 'bare minimum' to give a new system a decent crack of the whip. If it's just you and another person, then your games risk becoming very boring very quickly due to a lack of variety. Sure, you can keep expanding collections or switch between different forces and factions, but you're still playing the same person, who likely has a single set of gaming predilictions, preventing the two of you really exploring potential.

But, with 4 or 5, not only do you have a larger pool of different forces to fight, but different play styles. Other advantage is that you can lend your army to one of the others, thus getting to try different forces/factions without having to shell out.

I suppose 3 would be the absolute bare minimum, but 4-5 would seem fairest.

What do you reckon Dakka? This is less about the game I want to get into, and more about new systems in general.

I assume you mean a new system to make it viable within a club.

I should think two people are enough. Once they start playing each other, other club members will join in if it's fun.

Cost is a barrier to entry of course, so the cheaper the system the more likely it is to take off.

Hi MDG.
I totaly depends on what you want to achive and the people in your group.

If you just want to try out a game , then solo games just need you!

If you want to play a campain with 10 faction then you need 9 more people!

Game play should be determined by the quality of the rule set, not the diversity of participants IMO.
(WoTR is a good rule set IMO, I dont think finding players would be a problem. )

TTFN
Lanrak.

And here I was thinking MDG was looking an a non-GW game

I'm quite content playing Arcane Legions with just one other person. I guess it kinda depends on the cost of the game.

It's about starting new systems in general.

Desperate to play Ripper Wars!

I have one or two regular opponents. To be honest its changing the system that keeps things alive for me. If we just played the same game every week I'd get bored whoever I was playing. None of us are particularly "competitive" players, and will pick armies and forces for fluff and "fun to play" reasons rather than to maximise the possibility of the win. To be honest we've played so many games together that the W/L/D stats are totally irrelevant. So a new game gives us the chance to have a different style of painting, modelling, collecting, background/historical period and gameplay and keeps the hobby fresh. Moreso than does just switching an army or opponent for the same old game.

We're gaming magpies:

"Ooh those new Perry plastic Napoleonics look good, lets try a game we can use them in."
"I just came across my old Epic models and got a yearning to give them a try out."
"Lets try that new Uncharted Seas game everyone on the 'net is raving about".
"Malifaux looks sexy"
"I really love the new Space Wolves".
"Arcane miniatures are having a sale and I scored a couple of packs of Battleground cards".
"We haven't played a space ship game in ages".

All of the above and many more seemingly throwaway lines have resulted in us trying out (and enjoying) a new system.

"Try something new at every opportunity" is my gaming motto!

Seriously, why not?! There's nothing to be scared of. Give it a try, and if it doesn't scratch your itch, dump it and move on to something else. There seems to be some myth out there (perhaps more prevalent among the die-hard GW and PP fans, maybe?) that a particular game has to be worth investing £1,000's and hundreds of hours into and be absolutely guaranteed to provide entertainment for the next three decades. I cry phooey on that notion! Buy a new rulebook, buy a few figs, paint 'em up, try it out and see if it works. Once you get bored, try something else, rinse and repeat, and stop worrying about it!

WRT WotR, I've given it a go and it didn't scratch my itch, but I know we have very different tastes in games, so I suspect you may well enjoy it. A couple of boxes of plastic models and a second hand rulebook (saw one going for £5 the other day) aren't going to break the bank. You can even proxy WFB models if you want until you feel like committing to new toy soldiers. I urge you to live dangerously and give it a whirl! What's there to lose?