Rules that just dont make sense...

[knight_actual]

The whole thrown model stopping at same size model thing always puzzled me as well.

[PG_TrollSlayer]

I get the feling that alot of players think that the warjacks and warbeasts are the size of Voltron or Godzilla, when in fact nothing in the game is over 15 fifteen tall.

Dire Trolls are eighteen feet tall or more. Bronzeback titans as well.

[Kuwanger23]

Say there's a 'caster you want to knock down but there's a unit of trenchers in the way.

this would never happen because no Cygnar player is paying 13 points for that unit with the UA. lol

But I know what you mean.

[gr31]

this would never happen because no Cygnar player is paying 13 points for that unit with the UA. lol

But I know what you mean.

That's 16 points with grenade porters.

[Erf]

I greatly dislike the whole endless carousel effect of continuously replacing grunts with leader models. Its disruptive and adds the potential for inaccurate placement (and knocking stuff over).

I understand it's a necessity because of the new coherency rules, but it's just unelegant and impractical and I wish they'd come up with a more playable solution.

[Temujin]

And Temujin, that's easy, the Trenchers jump to catch their mate flying through the air and save their Warcaster (Be real folks, even if the model 'dies', that's broken ribs at worst for the jumper, that's just vacation and free leave from a combat zone!), whilst they duck when they see that Centurion coming!

Hmm, okay, I can see that. I still think they should, at the very least, be required to succeed at an interception roll (with a -2 penalty to their AG), then.

this would never happen because no Cygnar player is paying 13 points for that unit with the UA.

Not so, as I have in fact seen entire armies of them winning tournament games! Not the most common sight by any stretch, but it certainly does happen.

[Kenton]

This discussion has gone someway to relieving my frustration at the (IMO) overly simplistic targeting rules for this game. Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy it but it is awfully frustrating from time to time.

LOS is one issue, the throwing mechnic is also bonkers but there are many many more. When in doubt after failing to find an answer in the rule book I used to apply common sense. With WM/H (and only WM/H) I think of the common sense option and do the opposite. It has a higher success rate.

Most perplexing.

It's almost as if the authors are paying homage to some of the 'enthusiasticaly' mistranslated rule sets that have been around in recent years I have great sympathy for those trying to learn the rules with English as a foreign langauge!

[Mod_Plarzoid]

I greatly dislike the whole endless carousel effect of continuously replacing grunts with leader models. Its disruptive and adds the potential for inaccurate placement (and knocking stuff over).

I understand it's a necessity because of the new coherency rules, but it's just unelegant and impractical and I wish they'd come up with a more playable solution.

I do find this annoying as well, but there are things you can do about it. You can always use a unique counter to denote the unit commander. Say you have the PP token set, you could just put a penny on the unit commander, so when he dies you move the penny and don't have to worry about placement problems. So long as you explained this to your opponent, I doubt they'd have a problems with it, especially since unit commanders no longer have different stat lines, etc.

Also, the way the LOS rules work, if one model can "see another", the reverse has to be true (assuming nothing has moved). It's not explicitly stated, but I'm sure a proof could be written.

[PG_Feeple]

I actually got Litko to make me and my group of locals to make "Leader" tokens. They're bright yellow chevron-looking guys that denote the leader. I felt the same way, but still prefer the promotion mechanic. Unit leader sniping in MkI was frustrating.

[Mod_Plarzoid]

I actually got Litko to make me and my group of locals to make "Leader" tokens. They're bright yellow chevron-looking guys that denote the leader. I felt the same way, but still prefer the promotion mechanic. Unit leader sniping in MkI was frustrating.

I like that. You could easily spray paint some pennys, and hand paint chevrons. Easy!

[PG_MrChom]

Hmm, okay, I can see that. I still think they should, at the very least, be required to succeed at an interception roll (with a -2 penalty to their AG), then.

You have just made my day. All that needs to be said now is....



ILLEGAL PROCEDURE!

[PG_Endgame]

This discussion has gone someway to relieving my frustration at the (IMO) overly simplistic targeting rules for this game. Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy it but it is awfully frustrating from time to time.

LOS is one issue, the throwing mechnic is also bonkers but there are many many more. When in doubt after failing to find an answer in the rule book I used to apply common sense. With WM/H (and only WM/H) I think of the common sense option and do the opposite. It has a higher success rate.

Most perplexing.

It's almost as if the authors are paying homage to some of the 'enthusiasticaly' mistranslated rule sets that have been around in recent years I have great sympathy for those trying to learn the rules with English as a foreign langauge!

A good number of the rules quoted are the way they are for game balance purposes. The throwing example listed above -- it may not make the most sense that a thrown warp wolf flies over trenchers but not over, say, an iron clad, but the days of jack bowling were not fun. Clearing whole infantry units by 2 handed throwing a medium or large base was the suck (see Raged Dire Troll Mauler using Kriel Warriors as ammo -- and sometimes the ammo survived!).

For a game, the adage "fluff does not equal rules" is usually the best thing to apply for balance sake.

[PG_petegrrrr]

Also, the way the LOS rules work, if one model can "see another", the reverse has to be true (assuming nothing has moved). It's not explicitly stated, but I'm sure a proof could be written.

That's not how the rules work. A small based model behind a wall of other small bases could still see a larger based model beyond them, but the same is not true of the larger based model trying to see the small based model behind other small bases.

It's stated very clearly in the LOS rules. Otherwise, rules like arcing fire would be worthless, and larger based models would have a huge advantage over smaller bases. The penalty to being bigger is that you are easier to spot. Just think of it like that. Also, it just flat out keeps the game balanced.

Imagine a world where a defender could shoot every model that can see it. Now realize that your caster can see the defender pretty much anywhere on the board...which would mean all the defender would have to do is get within it's gun range to shoot your caster, regardless of how many medium or small base models you have between your caster and the jack.

That would just break the game in favor of ranged models with large or even medium bases. It would almost be like turning every ranged jack into seige's ground pounder. It may not be an aoe, but it would basically have a green light to shoot your caster every time it was within range.


Sure it seems like common sense, but it would also make the game unplayable. So you can have a broken game that works on common sense, or a good game with a few rules that seem slighly counter intuitive...but can actually be played and enjoyed. I choose the second option.

[vintersbastard]

And, by the way, most jacks are a lot taller than their eyes or weapons are positioned.
A man can see the cover plate at the top of a 'jack over the heads of his comrades while the warjack's head (which is ca. 3-4 ft. lower) cannot see him behind the other men.

[Sinsation]

I'd agree with Sinsation's point. Sure if the cloud had been there the entire time (or forest or what ever's in the way). Example, Unit of Long Gunners starts moving up the field in play ol' day, and some trenchers manning the line in front of them, Gunners let loose a salvo at some Winterguard, and the Trenchers drop their hazers. That Khadoran mortar in the back forgets that there's a line of clumped long gunners just a bit back? I'd accept an auto-miss for that if you where mimicking reality, but alas, PP wants clouds to be useful against AoEs. Not that it matters much to me in the end (Since Legion still doesn't care what your rules do).

This is more the issue. If my people get shot up and then the enemy disappears behind clouds, and I'm not paying for ammo? Rather than just walk forward and do nothing I'll shoot my gun wildly through the smoke and hope to tag a target.

[jandrese]

The only LOS rules I really have a problem with are the Elevated Attacker rules, because it reverses the base size checks for no apparent reason and always confuses people. Also, I think they're a bit overly permissive, since a large base model on a hill can literally ignore all models on the table except for his target. If your table is terrain sparse (or the terrain is mostly water/swamps/linear obstacles, hills), then its near impossible to prevent a Sniped Defender on a hill near the middle of the table from seeing and shooting your caster.

[Muffin Man]

Agreed, and I didn't say that it did. I pointed out that by the rules it is an intervening model, though, which does cause confusion as the rule isn't actually properly explained in the rulebook.

This is actually the thing that bugs me the most.

It's like didn't finish writing the rules for intervening models. Or maybe I'm **** and feel logically lead on.

[Aetou]

This is actually the thing that bugs me the most.

It's like didn't finish writing the rules for intervening models. Or maybe I'm **** and feel logically lead on.

I think it was more the other way around. It started off that intervening models mattered for lots of different things but things like removing screening and rewriting the LOS rules several times took out most of the rules relating to intervening models. A few references to intervening models (such as arcing fire) meant that retaining the concept was useful, it's just balance took away most of the main reasons for the initial concept.

[Northern Ronin]

This is more the issue. If my people get shot up and then the enemy disappears behind clouds, and I'm not paying for ammo? Rather than just walk forward and do nothing I'll shoot my gun wildly through the smoke and hope to tag a target.

Long Gunners do pay for their missed shots, I'd guess Steelhead Riflemen too. Perhaps Warcasters / Warlocks are just greedy with ammo that they make sure all of their troops know if they shoot wild, they pay for the round, and get a week in the brig!

[PG_petegrrrr]

Steelhead rifleman are specifically mentioned as getting bonuses for not wasting ammunition in the fluff, which I think is hilarious.

[Northern Ronin]

Steelhead rifleman are specifically mentioned as getting bonuses for not wasting ammunition in the fluff, which I think is hilarious.

I think their bonuses are for not using ammo, rather than wasting it Their company doesn't care how they kept their ammo, so long as the job was done, and most of their dudes came back so they don't need to get more recruits.

[vintersbastard]

Steelhead rifleman are specifically mentioned as getting bonuses for not wasting ammunition in the fluff, ....

Considering how expensive ammunition is in the Iron Kingdoms (when looking at the RPG), this makes sense.

[Cannotcope]

To a few of the above posters:

If you move the Large based model sufficiently far away enough though, it actually does become impossible to draw LOS to a smaller base, screened by another smaller base, so you don't *always* have LOS in that scenario.

Out of curiosity, are you referring to times where the curvature of the Earth becomes effectively a taller than 1.75" obstruction to LOS? Or is your idea of a straight line not exactly straight?

Oh, and I'm in the "throwing Centurions over Trenchers, but Trenchers can't clear other Trenchers" is silly camp. That said, I understand the game balance side of the rule, since I so very dearly want to cheese out and bowl with my jacks...

Another rule that I find somewhat silly are Steady horses/cats and the Dragoons that dismount without being crushed by all 1000+ lbs of their dying horse... At the very least, dismounting a Dragoon should knock them down.

[Dareith]

I've never been a fan of rules like Hunter. Just because you're a master woodsman who can see through trees doesn't mean that your arrows can go through layers of trees and foliage.

[Soul King]

but because they're expert riders, they are able to dodge. so as the horse topples, they pull their foot out of one of the stirrups, and dismount, as the horse falls. And yes, I've ridden horses, so from experience, I'd say it is possible.

[Professor Lust]

Out of curiosity, are you referring to times where the curvature of the Earth becomes effectively a taller than 1.75" obstruction to LOS? Or is your idea of a straight line not exactly straight?

Its more of a perspective issue and likely an desire not to argue whether a 1mm line is enough to see or not.

x and y are both 30 mm bases. Z is a 50 mm base.

x_y_Z

Z can clearly see x behind y.

x__y____________Z

Not so clear whether Z can still see x behind y. Maybe Mathematically its possible but most people don't want to argue the trig during a tournament.

[Mirumoto Kojiro]

There's a bunch of rules that don't make sense. First, the idea that being knocked down is always a bad thing. I guarantee you if a bullet wizzed past any one of us (or any real soldier) the first thing we'd do is get as low as possible, then move to cover. Being prone should, in theory, make you harder to hit by reducing your profile (admittedly not all WM models would benefit from this). But that's another irritation- Reinholt the goblin (who should almost be visible between the Behemoths legs) is suddenly visible when said behemoth falls down, despite the fact that even lying prone the thing is still four times his height. Of course if the behemoth falls down disabled instead of just tripping, suddely it's cover.

The way clouds do indeed negate the ability to shoot, even of weapons with Arcing Fire is silly. The whole purpose of them is to target things you can't see. You can't even target the cloud effect, though any veteran would quickly learn where clouds pop up (or even, you know, smoke trails) it's likely a good idea to lob a shell.

Then there's DEF. I don't doubt that it's easy to hit a juggernaught at 20 feet with a rifle but while it's in your face doing it's damnest to smoosh you into paste must make the task of hitting it more difficult. Same is true of any elite trooper- Stormblades are ridiculously easy to hit for 'elite' troops. What it comes down to is the difficulty in landing a blow on someone as opposed to hitting them with a projectile should be two different numbers.

Tough is another irritating, no limits fallacy. Can a troll take a bullet in the gut? Sure. Can a whelp take a Stormclad smashing it into the groud with a thousand pound weapon? Apparently so.

[Grom]

Then there's DEF. I don't doubt that it's easy to hit a juggernaught at 20 feet with a rifle but while it's in your face doing it's damnest to smoosh you into paste must make the task of hitting it more difficult. Same is true of any elite trooper- Stormblades are ridiculously easy to hit for 'elite' troops. What it comes down to is the difficulty in landing a blow on someone as opposed to hitting them with a projectile should be two different numbers.

That would be represented by MAT and RAT. I know that's the smart-aleck answer, but it's the truth. A Widowmaker doesn't fight in hand to hand to hand against Stormblades as well as they shoot them. Maybe that Widowmaker can hit a Stormblade with seven or eight times out of ten with his gun (pure speculation), but get into 'fisticuffs' with that same Stormblade, and we all know the result. So the difficulty changes between the two, so its easy to see that MAT and RAT do affect difficulty to hit in their two separate applications.

Plus two different DEF stats would be unwieldy, for the most part, and hard to balance.

[Beowulf99]

That would be true if this wasn't an all or nothing game. The fact of the matter is, if that widowmaker somehow get's into CC with the SB first, The widowmaker can kill that SB dead to rights without the SB doing a darn thing about it. I think what Mr. Kojiro was referring to, was that DEF should very dependent on what's happening. Hitting someone standing next to you with a sword, relatively easy, unless you are blocked/parried. Sending a bullet into the bulk of a Jack moving towards you at full bore, pretty easy, until they get so close you feel the wind from their charge. Why is it no harder for a trencher to shoot someone at their Max range, then hitting someone who's basically right next to him with his rifle?

The answer to all this is game balance. If you had to rework every models defense stat every shot/stab/spell, it would get VERY tiresome very fast.

[PG_Kaptajn Congoboy]

Back on topic at last! There are many rules in WM/H(as there are in all miniatures wargames) that make little sense from a real-world perspective. The Free Strike rules are another example. They make sense if you just run past your opponent or turn your back to him. But one of the safest ways of disengaging from the sort of mostly-1-on-1 melee combat that WM simulates is to back off with your face toward your opponent. Both situations generate a free strike...or how about the fact that standing on a hill makes you more difficult to hit with ranged and magic attacks?

These, and the others mentioned above, are parts of the rules that help the game work. Withdrawing from melee combat must have heavy penalties for ranged-oriented models. Hills makes it easier to trace LOS to you. Adding these advantages and disadvantages of certain actions helps form the tactical part of the game.

[Mirumoto Kojiro]

The answer to all this is game balance. If you had to rework every models defense stat every shot/stab/spell, it would get VERY tiresome very fast.

Sort of, yes. What I would more likely suggest is that MAT be compared with MAT when attacking someone in melee (naturally a total rebalance would be required but hear me out)- after all a Widowmaker- hell anyone who is not an elite melee warrior shouldn't want to go toe to toe with someone who is an elite. Right now you just have DEF as a catch all, which leads to said Widowmaker needing a 7 to hit the Stormblade- coincidentally the same number the Stormblade needs to hit the Widowmaker. Sounds like an even fight but for the ARM, and on the charge even a Widowmaker can expect to crack a Stormblade. But you can end up with something like Man'O'Wars in melee with gun mages. MoW needs an 8 to hit, gun mages need... 6? Sure ARM will save them but shouldn't it be more like 'Hello Mr Gun Mage. I managed to close with you. Now you die.'

But more the idea that a rampaging warjack (especially one who has just blown 3 focus hacking at you, plus it's base attacks) should be significantly more difficult to land a blow on in melee than the same warjack 20ft away plodding along slowly.

DEF works quite fine for Ranged and Spells but it fails utterly with melee- the more skilled you are should make you more difficult to land a blow on. Does anyone really think that hitting a deathripper should be harder than landing a blow on the Butcher? This also spreads to 'softie' casters, the type who have little to no melee ability who despite having no melee skill (sometimes not even a melee weapon!) they're dastardly hard to hit. This is balance, though as the OP, makes little sense sometimes.

Given that WM already uses a each model seperately type working (compared to 40K for example) I can't see it being a problem to have a more sophisitcated melee stat what means being a skilled warrior actually does you some good when you get charged.

[PG_MrChom]

A man-o-war is slow and cumbersome...but powerful...a gun mage is nimble and unarmoured...that follows that in melee a man-o-war would have trouble hitting but would certainly disable with a full blow...oh hey...that's how it works.

Fact is that Def represents a combination of your bulk, your ability to dodge, and just how much of an obvious target you are. So a warjack far away or up close will ALWAYS be easy to hit...that's never the issue....the issue is if you can do some lucky damage.

Mat/Rat vs Def is fine, the argument that an "elite warrior should have an advantage" when charged is a null one....elite units normally have abilites to either withstand a charge, or get the charge in first....anything else represents them being caught unaware.

As for softy high def casters....yeah...most of them look like small acrobatic and nimble things...able to dodge or use their power field to their advantage. It does all make sense...it just needs some thought.

[Haight]

A good number of the rules quoted are the way they are for game balance purposes. The throwing example listed above -- it may not make the most sense that a thrown warp wolf flies over trenchers but not over, say, an iron clad, but the days of jack bowling were not fun. Clearing whole infantry units by 2 handed throwing a medium or large base was the suck (see Raged Dire Troll Mauler using Kriel Warriors as ammo -- and sometimes the ammo survived!).

For a game, the adage "fluff does not equal rules" is usually the best thing to apply for balance sake.

This.

What makes me chuckle about this thread is that for every "huh" rule people post, i can think of a few reasons why the rule exists. Reasons, that if they did not exist, would cause people to complain quite loudly about the rules or game balance.

It's very chicken or the egg meets deja vu for me.

While i certainly appreciate some of the rules ---> logic head scratchers, rest assured there are very good reasons why the rules behave the way they do. Some of the examples in this thread - trust me, no one would like it if they went away for no other reason than "simulated realism" when they realized the real impact on the game.


-- haight

[knight_actual]

Why is "thrown model stops at same base or bigger" better than "stops at bigger base only"? Seems that when throwing something, you'd at least want to throw them over same sized stuff.

[Naahz]

I greatly dislike the whole endless carousel effect of continuously replacing grunts with leader models. Its disruptive and adds the potential for inaccurate placement (and knocking stuff over).

I understand it's a necessity because of the new coherency rules, but it's just unelegant and impractical and I wish they'd come up with a more playable solution.

The token set comes with a SGT symbol. You could mark the leader model with the token, then when the unit activates you measure from its current location, then instead of placing the same model at final location you place the leader model back on the board.

[Beowulf99]

Recently, I tried building a rule set that allowed play to happen "simultaneously". On paper, in most situations, it worked beautifully, but it didn't take long for me and a friend to playtest a few glaring bugs or just oversights. Some such as the Titan Sentry's Animus stopping either heavy from making contact, thus stopping combat from ever happening. True, I could have started throwing in little rules or rulings to counteract these quibbles, but that would have went a long way towards making the system WAY too wordy and unnecessarily complex. The same happens in any wargame. No rule is perfect, no rule makes total sense, but then neither does most of the things that happen in WM/H regularly.

[Cannotcope]

but because they're expert riders, they are able to dodge. so as the horse topples, they pull their foot out of one of the stirrups, and dismount, as the horse falls. And yes, I've ridden horses, so from experience, I'd say it is possible.

Yeah, dismounting a falling horse without getting crushed or falling down is possible. Have you ever tried it while wearing plate armour? While being shot at? While the horse is running at full speed?

I know, I know, real life and all that. Still, this thread is for complaining about suspension of disbelief rules.

Its more of a perspective issue and likely an desire not to argue whether a 1mm line is enough to see or not.

x and y are both 30 mm bases. Z is a 50 mm base.

x_y_Z

Z can clearly see x behind y.

x__y____________Z

Not so clear whether Z can still see x behind y. Maybe Mathematically its possible but most people don't want to argue the trig during a tournament.

There is no need to do any calculation. Simple knowledge of geometry will tell you that a single small base can not possibly completely block all (straight) lines from a large base to a target small base regardless of the extent of the finite distances between the three models.

I don't suppose you're in the group that still eyeballs blast template deviations, when it has been mathematically proven that a 3" template will hit a small base with a scatter of 2" or less?

[Waaargh]

@Mirumoto, I don't miss a game mechanic like what propose. The things you mention that are easy to hit are also those that rely on armour and have difficulties dodging an attack due to being cumbersome. Look no further than to the Cryx bonejacks for nimble constructions or Circle warpwolves for heavy yet agile beings. On the other hand Khador MOW and warjacks ignore the enemy attacking since their armour is build to withstand lighter attack, while they are trying to land finishing blows on the opponent.

[Aetou]

One silly little thing that still niggles me... why does Iron Flesh give +DEF instead of +ARM? The SPD debuff is because it slows down your movements...which is pretty much what DEF is isn't it?

I mean, obviously it's just so that it was different to Arcane Shield but it is very weird naming for the spell.

[PG_malfred]

I don't get why Argus has two heads.

The Argus in the Odyssey had one.

Cerberus has THREE.

So split the difference?