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.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 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.

I was meaning 40k, fantasy and Infnity. They all have rules that get caught up and can be a bit of a struggle. And is a problem that gets addressed in Warmachine, the company makes rulings to clear these issues up gradually, meaning that they gradually improve the game and how smoothly it runs. That is really the best that can be hoped for, because I can't think of anything that has been released that is as much fun as those 4 games that doesn't have these problems.

I can honestly say that I have not had a rule issue in any game that I have played. Sometimes we forget how something works, sometimes we mess up because of it but it really has nothing to do with the rules, I mean, whats the alternative to having these clear and concise rules? Not having rules at all? The problems with rules seems to come up from people not reading them in the first place or simply not double checking before executing a strategy. At least, that has been my experience.

Also - The rules are not lacking consistency, the behavior of the rules changes with the interaction of other factors but the ruling remains the same.

 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.

Really?

I disagree entirely. The rules are definitely NOT lacking consistency and are NOT overly convoluted.

Yes, people can have issues with the rules, but often because they are coming from another game system and their old way of reading the rules is screwing them up. Warmahorde's rules mean exactly what they say, using terms they have defined or using the proper American English definitions.

Maybe you being Australian is causing a slight language problem which can make it seem like the rules are what you claim they are.

PP's rule set have very specific language that it uses to help define when and where rules apply. I mean the whole concept of layering when a model is Disabled, then boxed, then destroyed helps define when specific abilities trigger such as tough and how self sacrifice can cancel effects such as swift hunter and snap fire, making it very tight and easy to define how things interact with one another.

Since MK II they've gone through great lengths of keeping same named abilities and the errata helps tighten loose language rules which were possibly interpreted incorrectly such as Shield wall.

I don't think there is really anything wrong with it as it stands and it is easy enough to teach new players without even touching a rule book.

A few wm/h rules might be a little bit complex, but overall every rule has an official and correct way to do it. You may need to study a bit but its all there. The devs made sure that everything is answered concisely, and very very quickly make official rulings to any new hidden trick that is discovered.

40k goes flying rodent gak crazy and every store has a different way to play some rules, and there is no official ruling to anything. The devs more or less said they don't care, and broken is more or less everywhere. Only rarely is a few things caught, and even then they are often fixed in the worst way possible.

Infinity is also insanely complex, probably more complex than both of these games. They have some official rulings, but a few of the more complex situations kinda of go unanswered. Not as bad overall as 40k tho, but not as concise as wm/h

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
That doesn't mean it isn't a problem in Warmachine or shouldn't be addressed.

Right. Because PP never releases FAQs, Errata or have Official rulings on their website. <edit> forgot the /sarcasm

PP has been THE most proactive company when it comes to rules for their tabletop game that I have ever dealt with. And if you are playing the game seriously and competitively then you keep up to date.

Are the rules too much for you to handle? That's personal taste.

Myself, I prefer Chess over Checkers.

PhantomViper wrote:

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.

Actually you're both wrong. The way it works is if you are ever immune to knockdown, but are knocked down you still comply with the normal rules for being knocked down in that you must forfeit your movement/action next activation. So therefore, your charge would fail as you're not within melee range of the target, but could then redirect it to another model within melee if one exists.
It felt wrong for a rule to left unproperly answered.

m14dude wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

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.

Actually you're both wrong. The way it works is if you are ever immune to knockdown, but are knocked down you still comply with the normal rules for being knocked down in that you must forfeit your movement/action next activation. So therefore, your charge would fail as you're not within melee range of the target, but could then redirect it to another model within melee if one exists.
It felt wrong for a rule to left unproperly answered.

This is not correct from what I am reading, you even said it yourself - "Next activation". The knockdown rule states that when your own model is knocked down during your turn, then it must still sacrifice a movement or action if it later activates during that same turn. If the KD effect occurred to the model in the middle of it's own activation (a rare situation indeed) then it would not suffer the KD effects at all since it has already activated.

In the aforementioned situation, a model that was immune to KD charged out of melee range with a model that has critical slam on it's weapon. The model makes a free strike and rolled a critical thus slamming the model leaving melee. The slammed model would then be moved the slam distance, and then continue the charge from there. In a counterslam situation, the charging model has to finish it's charge movement to trigger the counterslam.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here is the thing with these rules. If you read the situation and then read the language on the rules involved, there is no question as to what happens, this would not even come up if people were reading the rules and understanding them word for word. The rules specifically state that the KD effect comes into play only if the model activates later in the activation. The charge movement would not fail because there is nothing in the rules that say or suggest that they would. I was reading through all these threads on the PP forum about these examples and the initial questions appear to come up simply by people not reading the rules.

 Grey Templar wrote:

I disagree entirely. The rules are definitely NOT lacking consistency and are NOT overly convoluted.

Yes, people can have issues with the rules, but often because they are coming from another game system and their old way of reading the rules is screwing them up. Warmahorde's rules mean exactly what they say, using terms they have defined or using the proper American English definitions.

I think this is a great point. I remember when I switched over to Warmahordes--trying to figure out how units charge. Really, the rules were not unclear--I was just coming to the game loaded with years of 40k mechanic assumptions. Once I learned to shut that part of my brain up--and just read the rules for what they were--everything clicked.

And really, we haven't even had to reference the rule book for some time---outside of Fear/CMD checks--as it was tough for us to remember when you check CMD (and when single models suffer a penalty). That part needs cleaned up in MkIII--as it's pretty harsh (on it's effect in game) and probably one of the more poorly written sections of the book. I absolutely love this rule set though--games feel 'clean' when we finish now--rather than grey areas we constantly need to dice off on (looking at you 40k).

Rule stuff

Maybe this is why the rules are so hard for some people. This is a discussion forum, not a rules forum.

It is silly to discuss rules here when you can get a final definitive answer in the official PP rules forums.

Use your brains and use the resources PP provides. If you are not willing to do at least that then quit complaining about how tough the rules are.

I'm definitely in the "rules are very clear" camp. I've been running tournaments now since 2009 and except the very first baby steps 95% of all calls of "judge" involve me having to do a measurement. And even those are relatively rare.

Which doesn' t mean that everything is perfect, though. Keep looking for contradicitons and unclear fields. Just read through the rules properly before you declare you've got one of those, because extremely often you have misread something when you think there is an error.

Yeah, the only times I've called a judge over was on a measurement or LoS deal. Never an actual rule's problem.

To me the rules are quite clear. Most of the time if there is a "special rule" it will be written on the card you have in front of you. This is a major plus that no other games I know have, PP have a solid advantage on that point. I am a converted from Fantasy/40k and start playing Warmachine a years an half ago. I see the differences and the fact that having all your stats in front of you on a little card really help organizing things with activations and special actions, feats and combo etc. Other than that, knowhing what a Warjack can do while spending focus is not a hard task to remember, especially with all the support that PP provide. It's a pretty straight foward game. After that, it's just a matter of remembering what is special in your battle group, it's not really a lack of rules but a personnal thing.

I hav'nt learn much about Hordes yet, but if include both as a single game, it can be a little confusing between Beasts and Warjack, but other than that... I don't see the real challenge, as all miniatures games it have it's own level of difficulty not much or less than others.

Fury vs Focus isn't really a huge leap. The differences in the mechanics doesn't really effect the game if playing against each other.

KingKodo wrote:
I can honestly say that I have not had a rule issue in any game that I have played. Sometimes we forget how something works, sometimes we mess up because of it but it really has nothing to do with the rules, I mean, whats the alternative to having these clear and concise rules? Not having rules at all? The problems with rules seems to come up from people not reading them in the first place or simply not double checking before executing a strategy. At least, that has been my experience.

Also - The rules are not lacking consistency, the behavior of the rules changes with the interaction of other factors but the ruling remains the same.

My opinion is different. Have you never played with:

-zealots and chain lightning?
-Mulg with Protective Fit and chain lightning?
-Durgen with Blast Armor vs Hyper Aggressive?

I would say there are two problematic categories:

1) A bunch of rules that have been fixed, changed, corrected or heavily commented online, making it hard to remember and look up. These are the sort of things you never can read on cards or in any book to find out.
2) Some rules are inconsistent or are even unanswered.

Wether rules are too complicated or not is of course a question without any definite answer. The motivation for discussion however for me was watching battle reports with constant mistakes being done in them. And when I think about it, even games I play I do mistakes or play against people who do mistakes, even if we have played this game for some years now.

Baxx wrote:

KingKodo wrote:
I can honestly say that I have not had a rule issue in any game that I have played. Sometimes we forget how something works, sometimes we mess up because of it but it really has nothing to do with the rules, I mean, whats the alternative to having these clear and concise rules? Not having rules at all? The problems with rules seems to come up from people not reading them in the first place or simply not double checking before executing a strategy. At least, that has been my experience.

Also - The rules are not lacking consistency, the behavior of the rules changes with the interaction of other factors but the ruling remains the same.

My opinion is different. Have you never played with:

-zealots and chain lightning?
-Mulg with Protective Fit and chain lightning?
-Durgen with Blast Armor vs Hyper Aggressive?

I would say there are two problematic categories:

1) A bunch of rules that have been fixed, changed, corrected or heavily commented online, making it hard to remember and look up. These are the sort of things you never can read on cards or in any book to find out.
2) Some rules are inconsistent or are even unanswered.

Wether rules are too complicated or not is of course a question without any definite answer. The motivation for discussion however for me was watching battle reports with constant mistakes being done in them. And when I think about it, even games I play I do mistakes or play against people who do mistakes, even if we have played this game for some years now.

I would argue that War Room is a great resource for errata'd cards are they are updated when a ruling comes out. Now before people start saying the app sucks blah blah blah, go into the setting and select the minimal mode and it works fast and doesn't crash.

It won't work on my 5 year old cell-phone. But yeah, it's a good idea and also doesn't require internet.

I'm still curious if any off-line source (books, cards, apps) could answer the difference between Durgen's Blast Armor vs Hyper Aggressive. Or Chain Attack: Smite vs Colossals/Gargantuans.

What's the problem with chain attack? It's been ruled that you can damage a gargossal with a slam but you can't move it.

Baxx wrote:

KingKodo wrote:
I can honestly say that I have not had a rule issue in any game that I have played. Sometimes we forget how something works, sometimes we mess up because of it but it really has nothing to do with the rules, I mean, whats the alternative to having these clear and concise rules? Not having rules at all? The problems with rules seems to come up from people not reading them in the first place or simply not double checking before executing a strategy. At least, that has been my experience.

Also - The rules are not lacking consistency, the behavior of the rules changes with the interaction of other factors but the ruling remains the same.

My opinion is different. Have you never played with:

-zealots and chain lightning?
-Mulg with Protective Fit and chain lightning?
-Durgen with Blast Armor vs Hyper Aggressive?

I would say there are two problematic categories:

1) A bunch of rules that have been fixed, changed, corrected or heavily commented online, making it hard to remember and look up. These are the sort of things you never can read on cards or in any book to find out.
2) Some rules are inconsistent or are even unanswered.

Wether rules are too complicated or not is of course a question without any definite answer. The motivation for discussion however for me was watching battle reports with constant mistakes being done in them. And when I think about it, even games I play I do mistakes or play against people who do mistakes, even if we have played this game for some years now.

I have indeed played with every one of those situations and have not encountered an issue, although I am not seeing the correlation between Durgen's blast armor and the Hyper aggressive ability. Again, I have not seen an inconsistent rule, in my group's experience, its all very straightforward so long as you read everything and make sure you understand it before putting it into use.

I too would be interested to see what you think the problem is with durgen and hyper aggressive, and when that would happen.

 motyak wrote:
I too would be interested to see what you think the problem is with durgen and hyper aggressive, and when that would happen.

I believe he's referring to;

http://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?176117-quot-Suffer-Damage-quot





In regards to the rules in general---regardless of the system there will always need to be a FAQ or errata when you have a variety of forces. You can, of course, download the latest Errata and print it out if you do not have access to a smart device. However, generally one of two things has happened to us when we have a strange one off rules interaction come up;

1. Either we are playing in my rec room and we can immediately pause/google it. Then we know forever (Or until MkIII) how it's played. I don't consider this any different than learning your caster.
2. It's at a tournament and you are playing an army that you normally don't play--and an interaction comes up. In which case, you have a judge or PG that can either answer the question or google the answer.

I have yet to experience a situation the above two areas do not cover--and really even then, most times we believe we know the answer--and the google usually just confirms are inclinations.

You say things like Blast Armor and Hyper Aggressive are easy, yet questions about them stand un-answered even by infernals at the official forum.

Like AgeOfEgos links to, "Suffer Damage". According to one user there, this wording has been interpreted both ways in the past.

The main issue with Blast Armor and Hyper Aggressive is:

Does Durgen get a focus if he is hit by blast damage and the damage roll does not exceed his ARM?
Does a model with hyper-aggressive get to advance if it is hit by an enemy attack and the damage roll does not exceed his ARM?
Does Siege's feat continue to affect a model if it is hit by an attack and the damage roll does not exceed the target's ARM?

http://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?176117-quot-Suffer-Damage-quot]

I would agree cases with chain attacks/power attack effects against colossals/gargantuans today are an easy matter to sort out. Because we have read the forums and stay up to date. Something nobody where I live seems to do. Whenever I do look at the official rules forums, I do see alot of easy questions that could easily be learned by just reading cards, books or what ever properly. I also see several questions which are so advanced, I have no clue how to answer them even after reading all the rules.

Take a model with counter charge/slam ability charging a model with admonition and counter charge/slam. Who get's the the first counter charge? I guess, after reading a long disussion about it, to be the charging model who gets to counter charge first. Still situations like these make a lot of people unsure about it and several do answer wrong.

http://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?176137-Order-of-operations-w-Counter-Charge-Admonition

Well, if people aren't looking at the PP forums that's their problem.

And you are still bringing up a very corner case situation.


And really, counter-charge/slam vs the same thing(with admonition on top) is easy if you apply proper order of operations. As they did in that thread.

If you're playing at a tournament, a judge makes a call and the
question is answered. Done. Sometimes the call is wrong, but
in the grand scheme of things, does it matter?

Baxx wrote:
You say things like Blast Armor and Hyper Aggressive are easy, yet questions about them stand un-answered even by infernals at the official forum.

I call bs here. An Infernal responded to the post within 22 minutes saying he was working on an answer.

recognizing that it was a complicated issue he locked the thread this morning and said he would get an answer.

I'm not sure I understand what more PP can do?

As for the counter charge thread it appears that it was answered correctly in which case an infernal will simply lock the thread and not always add their 2 cents.

Really, you keep harping on all this and frankly all I am seeing is PP responding better than any other game I have played. And they have the tightest rules of any game I have played. Since the rules are so solid they are easier for me because they are consistent.

Mostly what I am hearing is that people aren't bothering to read the book and use the official PP rules forum for any clarification. And that is an issue of the person, not the game, rules or the company.

Frankly Baxx you seem to be more of a troll than anything else and just trying to stir up trouble for...I don't know why.

Let him stir a bit, these forums are normally dead otherwise


Well not counting the "Heya, Here is some vague info, What army should I play?"

Hey guys I have two working hands and a brain to use them, what army would be best for me?

 Surtur wrote:
Hey guys I have two working hands and a brain to use them, what army would be best for me?

Heres a 25 pt starter

Vlad3
Drago
Max Mechanik x3, 2 of which have the UA
Bloody Bradigan
Gobber Tinker
Max Woodsmen

Hows that for almost no synergy

Baxx wrote:
You say things like Blast Armor and Hyper Aggressive are easy, yet questions about them stand un-answered even by infernals at the official forum.

Like AgeOfEgos links to, "Suffer Damage". According to one user there, this wording has been interpreted both ways in the past.

The main issue with Blast Armor and Hyper Aggressive is:

Does Durgen get a focus if he is hit by blast damage and the damage roll does not exceed his ARM?
Does a model with hyper-aggressive get to advance if it is hit by an enemy attack and the damage roll does not exceed his ARM?
Does Siege's feat continue to affect a model if it is hit by an attack and the damage roll does not exceed the target's ARM?

http://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?176117-quot-Suffer-Damage-quot]

I would agree cases with chain attacks/power attack effects against colossals/gargantuans today are an easy matter to sort out. Because we have read the forums and stay up to date. Something nobody where I live seems to do. Whenever I do look at the official rules forums, I do see alot of easy questions that could easily be learned by just reading cards, books or what ever properly. I also see several questions which are so advanced, I have no clue how to answer them even after reading all the rules.

Take a model with counter charge/slam ability charging a model with admonition and counter charge/slam. Who get's the the first counter charge? I guess, after reading a long disussion about it, to be the charging model who gets to counter charge first. Still situations like these make a lot of people unsure about it and several do answer wrong.

http://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?176137-Order-of-operations-w-Counter-Charge-Admonition

Alright, I will admit that sometimes players find ways to use abilities in ways that were perhaps not expected by the devs of the game years ago. They answer these issues extremely quickly. In fact, there was already a thread on the forums that answered the blast armor/hyper aggressive thing - I checked immediately after your original post regarding it. However, in the case of blast armor and hyper aggressive, the wording tells you exactly how it functions. I mean, I can see where some people might get confused especially if they really want the ability to work a certain way (such as blast armor not requiring a damage roll) and that might influence how they understand the rules. Regardless, I am still not seeing inconsistency anywhere at all.

 motyak wrote:

 Surtur wrote:
Hey guys I have two working hands and a brain to use them, what army would be best for me?

Heres a 25 pt starter

Vlad3
Drago
Max Mechanik x3, 2 of which have the UA
Bloody Bradigan
Gobber Tinker
Max Woodsmen

Hows that for almost no synergy

Sir, you have made the worst list ever possibly achieved. FBI will be by shortly to redact the information and store it with the arc of the covenant.