*sigh*

[waynebaumber]

Taxagony points out the two biggest flaws in PG, which are the rules and the lack of proof reading and playtesting in the their scenario's.

Vince often asks me why I play solo, one of the main reasons is I can play the rules as I read them and not have to play rule either as a comprise or follow the majority's take on any particular rule. We all know which rules vex us the LOS rules in regards to hills and the fleeing rules are the two stand out ones. In scenario rules my take on Penal troop is completely different to the majority.

However in FtF I can and will play the rules as to how the majority want to play them.

It is amazing how there are so many good scenario's around considering it is obvious that a lot were not proof read or played prior to publishing and a testament to how good the basic system is.

PG is crying out for a 4th edition set of rules, which will be longer than the current set. Will AP deliver one I doubt it. Can we the hobbyist's deliver a living set of rules probably one not one which will be accepted universally and of course could well impinge copyright laws. The set of rules in PG HQ is the closest we may well come to it but I do not use them when playing.

So to Texagony I say play PG it's worth the effort but we also feel your pain.