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.

So I'm watching battle reports while painting miniatures, and it's easy to get annoyed when the game you're watching has more or less critical errors.

Even when watching the official battle reports from Privateer Press with live commentaries and 2 judges watching from both sides, some tiny mistakes do occour.

Is this game too advanced? Similar situation in other miniature games has led to future versions being simplified.

I like the rules and the level of it, but I also must ask myself if I have ever played a game with absolutely no mistakes done. In other miniature games you can play game after game without ever doing a mistake.

So what do you think?

Also, if you have seen a 100% flawless battle report, please share it here.

Of course, the game is fun to play even if mistakes are made, just so that's been said.

The game is way too complex for my tastes and has way too great a burden of knowledge. A completely insane number of matches end up with an "oh, I thought that worked a different way" at a critical point that might have decided the game, even amongst experienced players.

There is no game which can provide a 100% perfect run through.

Kasparov beat Judit Polgar in one match because he moved a piece from where it was originally placed- looking back, it was a clear violation of the whole touch rule of chess, but no-one called it in-match.

40k and Fantasy admittedly don't so much have "rule mistakes" as they do "this rule really doesn't make sense, this is how we interpreted it in this context."

The 60 page mini rule book is just to much to read. I can see why there are so many errors..


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
There is no game which can provide a 100% perfect run through.

Kasparov beat Judit Polgar in one match because he moved a piece from where it was originally placed- looking back, it was a clear violation of the whole touch rule of chess, but no-one called it in-match.

40k and Fantasy admittedly don't so much have "rule mistakes" as they do "this rule really doesn't make sense, this is how we interpreted it in this context."

Just my 0.02 cents i do not think its the core rules the people mess up its the stats and abillities that are a little tricky some times. How ever coming from 40k over to WM/H the rules are very EZ to read/understand and use.

 SheSpits wrote:
The 60 page mini rule book is just to much to read. I can see why there are so many errors..

I'm so sorry but I have to ask: are you being sarcastic?

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 SheSpits wrote:
The 60 page mini rule book is just to much to read. I can see why there are so many errors..

I'm so sorry but I have to ask: are you being sarcastic?

Yes VERY!

Just my 0.02 cents i do not think its the core rules the people mess up its the stats and abillities that are a little tricky some times. How ever coming from 40k over to WM/H the rules are very EZ to read/understand and use.

It's a whole bunch of core rules as well as stats and abilities from cards.

Specially with power attacks, charge lanes, stealth, line of sight, limits of animii, spells, upkeepspells... Very much confusion and on several occasions PP infernals must come in and give the final word.

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
There is no game which can provide a 100% perfect run through.

I don't like 40k better, but I could do that game flawless without errors, blindfolded with one arm on my back.

It is. It has such a tight ruleset based of RPG systems that it is hard to remember so much stuff. I think that is why 40k is more popular, less of the rules make sense, but so many of the core rules are not so confusing

Baxx wrote:
It's a whole bunch of core rules as well as stats and abilities from cards.

Specially with power attacks, charge lanes, stealth, line of sight, limits of animii, spells, upkeepspells... Very much confusion and on several occasions PP infernals must come in and give the final word.

Could you provide an example, please?

I think the reason so many Batreps have rules errors is because lots of the people making the Batreps are lazy and don't actually take the time to read the rules carefully.

I don't mind a small error here and there, mistakes happen. But then there are some things which there is no excuse for.

Unlike 40k, there is almost never a grey area in the rules. Things are written clearly and concisely. And any questions you do have can be answered by posting on the PP forums and getting an official ruling from an Infernal.


Unfortunately, some of the more well put together channels for battle reports contain the worst rules mistakes. Miniwargaming especially. Even with a voice over they can't remember the rules correctly or even the names of their own models and abilities

So basically, the game isn't too advanced, people are just lazy with their rules. Which may be a bad habit from GW rule sets where you can be intellectually lazy with them.

Lazy with their rules instead of it being too advanced?

What are you gonna do when you charge with an immune to knockdown model and suffer freestrike from a model with slam?

What are you going to do if you have a unit with electro-leap and prey attacking their prey target?

One thing you can't do is check the book.

Gonna have to make a list so I remember more of these tricky situations that occour.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I think the reason so many Batreps have rules errors is because lots of the people making the Batreps are lazy and don't actually take the time to read the rules carefully.

I don't mind a small error here and there, mistakes happen. But then there are some things which there is no excuse for.

Unlike 40k, there is almost never a grey area in the rules. Things are written clearly and concisely. And any questions you do have can be answered by posting on the PP forums and getting an official ruling from an Infernal.


Unfortunately, some of the more well put together channels for battle reports contain the worst rules mistakes. Miniwargaming especially. Even with a voice over they can't remember the rules correctly or even the names of their own models and abilities

So basically, the game isn't too advanced, people are just lazy with their rules. Which may be a bad habit from GW rule sets where you can be intellectually lazy with them.

Hugh, don't get me started with Miniwargaming or wargamergirl! If you are taking the time and trouble to make a video battle report, then please take the time to at least learn the rules!

That is why I was asking about examples, I' pretty sure that the OP was talking about those BR's... MattieK's reports are the only ones worth watching IMO, there's little to no chance that you'll catch a rules mistake in one of his reports.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Baxx wrote:
Lazy with their rules instead of it being too advanced?

What are you gonna do when you charge with an immune to knockdown model and suffer freestrike from a model with slam?

You get slammed, you just don't get knocked down.

Baxx wrote:

What are you going to do if you have a unit with electro-leap and prey attacking their prey target?

What is your question here? If you think that the prey bonus can be applied to the electro leap damage, then you are wrong because the electro leap doesn't originate in the unit.

Baxx wrote:

One thing you can't do is check the book.

Gonna have to make a list so I remember more of these tricky situations that occour.

There, answered with no book checking required.

PhantomViper wrote:

What is your question here? If you think that the prey bonus can be applied to the electro leap damage, then you are wrong because the electro leap doesn't originate in the unit.

So if you made a battle report with this situation happening, you would make one such mistake which is annoying to watch.

By trying to prove it's all simple, you prove the opposite.

Infernal rulings: http://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?123470-Farrow-Slaughterhousers-and-Lightning-Tendrils-Finisher
http://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?110650-Eye-of-the-Storm-and-Electroleap

PhantomViper wrote:

You get slammed, you just don't get knocked down.
.

Obviously, but what happens after?

Electro leap works with eye of the storm. Electro leap is a damage roll made by the model with electro leap. This overrules the previous ruling and understanding , and means that abilities like prey will apply on electro leap.


Please remember that electro leap is part of one of our broadest unresolved rules interactions, having to do with type and source of damage, and this ruling is limited to the narrowest interpretation of what I've written here.


The "origin of damage" rules quoted throughout this thread are, as several posters have noted, not relevant to this discussion. Origin of Damage tells you the spatial source of incoming damage for resolution of effects that interact with that. They do not tell you anything about which model, if any, is making a damage roll.

Congratulations, you've found one of those rarest situations in which an Infernal ruling directly contradicts the general rule itself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Baxx wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

You get slammed, you just don't get knocked down.
.

Obviously, but what happens after?

After what? You finish you charge move, you get countercharged and slammed. As part of the slam you get moved to another place and stay there, you just don't get knocked down.

Wargamergirl has errors? I've not seen any to date. She's one of the few I feel does an excellent job. Aside from that, they are very well put together. I just wish there was more variety.

PhantomViper wrote:

Congratulations, you've found one of those rarest situations in which an Infernal ruling directly contradicts the general rule itself.

Rarest?

As I said earlier, I need to keep track of more examples because I don't remember more now. They way I see it however is that special cases that make this game so advanced are not rare. I did just mention 2 examples and it's easy to be wrong about both so I won't say they are rare.

I believe power attacks and gargantuans/colossals are another example.

PhantomViper wrote:

After what? You finish you charge move, you get countercharged and slammed. As part of the slam you get moved to another place and stay there, you just don't get knocked down.

That is again incorrect. There is no countercharge included here. As part of the slam, you get moved to another place and continue your charge from there. And if I remember correctly, you continue the charging to the original target, meaning this charge is not in one straight line but in a zigg-zakk Z type of form. What's funny is that the new charge lane could even result in more (or less) freestrikes from the enemy.

Infernal rulings here:
http://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?30824-Charging-Crit-Slam-on-Freestrike-Immune-to-Knockdown-%28-!-%29

So you said all rules are simple, yet you would make a battle report so far containing 2 errors.

Power Attacks really aren't complex. People just don't use them very often because most of them are only useful in certain situations.

I think the only ones you really see are Slams, Headbutts, and Throws. And the last two almost always only show up because of a Chain Attack. And Slams show up because there are a few models that can Slam for free.

Gargantuans and Colossals aren't complex either. its just people get rules wrong.


One common mistake is Clouds/Forests interacting with huge bases. People know they don't block LoS to the Colossal, but they somehow think the inverse is true. But that again is lazyness and not reading the actual rule and thinking it out completely.

Baxx wrote:

That is again incorrect. There is no countercharge included here. As part of the slam, you get moved to another place and continue your charge from there. And if I remember correctly, you continue the charging to the original target, meaning this charge is not in one straight line but in a zigg-zakk Z type of form.

You are correct, I mistakenly read "free strike" as "counter charge" for some reason. And yes, the answer would be that you continue the charge from the point where you were slammed.

Baxx wrote:

So you said all rules are simple, yet you would make a battle report so far containing 2 errors.

No, I wouldn't. Because as part of this little exercise you stipulated that I couldn't check any rules before I answered, so I answered entirely from memory, during the course of a game every player can check any rule that he has doubts about.

During the course of a game, any player with internet connection and an appliance with a web-browser can, if the player has time and patience for it, google and try to find an asnwer.

During most of my games, I do not have the requirements to do this. And so even if I knew the complete book, I would still make errors. But that's just a corner case the sake of this discussion. As I think the online rulings, the cards and the books are too advanced combined.

Memory prove to be full of mistakes and it's pointless to look through the book when some of these questions aren't even answered by the infernals because also they must ask and discuss in their system what to answer.

Whats the point of this thread?

The point is discussing wether the game is too advanced or not and what to say about a game which almost always are played with more or less critical mistakes being made (like we see in battle reports).

Baxx wrote:
During the course of a game, any player with internet connection and an appliance with a web-browser can, if the player has time and patience for it, google and try to find an asnwer.

During most of my games, I do not have the requirements to do this. And so even if I knew the complete book, I would still make errors. But that's just a corner case the sake of this discussion. As I think the online rulings, the cards and the books are too advanced combined.

Memory prove to be full of mistakes and it's pointless to look through the book when some of these questions aren't even answered by the infernals because also they must ask and discuss in their system what to answer.

I guess that since you found one incredibly corner case scenario where only an infernal ruling would be right and another corner case and weird scenario but easily explained by reading the rules, that only leaves you the option to sell all your stuff and quit playing the game immediately, obviously...




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SheSpits wrote:
Whats the point of this thread?

I'm asking myself the same question... I'll leave the rest of you guys to it and excuse myself from it.

wm/h is a very complex game, as a long time player of 4ok, it's fun to play a game where you can do almost anything. it's the most realistic combat wargame i've seen as far as the sheer amount of options you have for laying down the hurt.
want to slam your opponent into a building? there's a rule for that, want to find out if the building takes enough damage that it topples on top of him/ it? there's a rule for that as well. the combat system is so visceral that in any one turn with a single character, that are at least a half a dozen ways to win. the game itself rewards skill in the application of chosen forces, not just winning the game at the list building level.

I can barely believe this is a thread.

How often do these sorts of scenarios come up? Once every 5-10 games? I can't imagine anyone is finding it too strenuous to look something up in the rulebook every 5-10 times you play.

Baxx wrote:

One thing you can't do is check the book.

Why not?

If you can't be bothered look up a rule don't complain about it.

 Mordekiem wrote:

Baxx wrote:

One thing you can't do is check the book.

Why not?

If you can't be bothered look up a rule don't complain about it.

First.....there is an index in the back of the book. Second if you go to PP forums you can download a one page "most used" rules reference..... I would do it for you but then how would you learn?

Second... If you are having this much of an issue with the rules, i would recommend getting together with a local PG or a friend and play a bunch of battle box games with the rule book in front of you. Anytime you are not sure or are about to do something like a two hand throw, stop and look up the rule. Build some "muscle memory" that way.

As to opponent's special rules... this is an open information game, you can see their cards at any time, If they measure something you have the right to ask what it came out to.

If you are getting repeatedly stomped because you are not seeing the combo's/synergies I would ask the people doing it to show you how they are doing it. Most people I have played (across three states and what 7-8 game stores) will take the time to help you learn.

Good luck

Every tournament will have judges for the rare situations that come up and for clarification of rules. I went to Kingdomcon in April out here in So Cal and honestly, there were very few judgment calls because overall the rules are straight forward and easy to figure out since PP has created a tight rule set and often you can discuss it with your opponent and usually find the answer.

The core rules are not overly cumbersome or complex at all for a wargame. The complexity comes with the interactions of different models, synergies and outcomes of special abilities that interact with one another. This complexity creates a beautiful depth to the game that can be very rewarding to learn and harness as a player. Player skill above all else rules the table which is how it should be.

Being able to look up the answer is better than not being able to look it up, but it doesn't solve the problem. You're going to be looking it up when the two players have already had a difference of understanding of the rules. If they've been working to those different understandings, the result of the game can turn unexpectedly on whose is correct. That is awful.

And it's not just newbies who make these mistakes. People who have been playing for over a year often seem to still have these issues.

I think the core of the problem is that the rules often lack consistency and are overly convoluted. A lot of them make little logical sense, which makes them harder to remember, and they're special cases that are used infrequently, but can make all the difference when they do.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Being able to look up the answer is better than not being able to look it up, but it doesn't solve the problem. You're going to be looking it up when the two players have already had a difference of understanding of the rules. If they've been working to those different understandings, the result of the game can turn unexpectedly on whose is correct. That is awful.

And it's not just newbies who make these mistakes. People who have been playing for over a year often seem to still have these issues.

I think the core of the problem is that the rules often lack consistency and are overly convoluted. A lot of them make little logical sense, which makes them harder to remember, and they're special cases that are used infrequently, but can make all the difference when they do.

I don't see that this is as relevant to warmachine and hordes as you seem to believe, and it also isn't unique to any tabletop game, I can name another 3 off the top of my head that I play which have a lot of rules arguments and questions and what not that people who have been playing for over a year can't figure out, and those other companies don't necessarily address these issues, they just let them fester and confuse more and more games.

 motyak wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Being able to look up the answer is better than not being able to look it up, but it doesn't solve the problem. You're going to be looking it up when the two players have already had a difference of understanding of the rules. If they've been working to those different understandings, the result of the game can turn unexpectedly on whose is correct. That is awful.

And it's not just newbies who make these mistakes. People who have been playing for over a year often seem to still have these issues.

I think the core of the problem is that the rules often lack consistency and are overly convoluted. A lot of them make little logical sense, which makes them harder to remember, and they're special cases that are used infrequently, but can make all the difference when they do.

I don't see that this is as relevant to warmachine and hordes as you seem to believe, and it also isn't unique to any tabletop game, I can name another 3 off the top of my head that I play which have a lot of rules arguments and questions and what not that people who have been playing for over a year can't figure out, and those other companies don't necessarily address these issues, they just let them fester and confuse more and more games.

"40k is worse" isn't a defense. We all know 40k is worse. That's part of why we're playing Warmachine, I'd wager.

Yes, a lot of miniatures games will have similar problems. There are a number of factors that work against rules quality in wargame evolution. That doesn't mean it isn't a problem in Warmachine or shouldn't be addressed.