Detailed Rule Books

[DCal12]

How detailed do we want a rule book? At some point should a designer be able to expect a player to use common sense? A question was actually asked about Aircraft and minefields. Does this not fall under? Duh!!! Can I put my aircraft in a pill box? I have yet to find in a rule book, a rule that prohibites me from kicking the leg of the table and knocking all the pieces to the floor if I am losing. If it is not prohibited in the rule book then it must be ok? Should this not be a fun game and not one in which a player should try and see how he can manipulate the rules, find a loop hole so he can place his horse in a vehicle, shoot down planes with flamethrowers.

[Uncle_Joe]

Nope, 'Magic the Gathering' removed common sense in rules a long time again. Everything is more in the wording and the twisting of said wording now.

And there is a difference between casual players, competitive players, and tournament players. Common sense tends to apply to the former two, but the latter tends to go with exactly as written...the letter of the law more than the intent so to speak.

[cannonfodder]

I agree with DCal12. This is another reason why I don't think I would play at a tournament level. When the game is more about the rules than it is about having fun then I leave the room.
In short I'd rather play the game than look for loopholes in the rules. But that's just me.

[Y2UAsk]

OTOH, if you sat down with your friend before the game and agreed to bet $20 on the outcome, you'd probably pay a lot more attention to make sure he didn't pull a fast one or 'misinterpret' a rule in his favor. Things change when a prize is on the line. That's why the R&D and editing folk sweat the wording so much.

Steve

[Stealth]

OTOH, if you sat down with your friend before the game and agreed to bet $20 on the outcome, you'd probably pay a lot more attention to make sure he didn't pull a fast one or 'misinterpret' a rule in his favor. Things change when a prize is on the line. That's why the R&D and editing folk sweat the wording so much.

Steve

Uh, Steve, if the current rules are the result of the team 'sweating the wording' so much then you've got some real incompetents there. Lets think about some results of this 'sweating':

Initial transport rules (cavalry in trucks anyone?)
Initial aircraft rules
All current Hero rules
At leat half the SA's as written
A fair number of points costs

All of the above, to me, show an almost total disregard for play balance and historical reality in a game. Rather it seems as if the rules are just a secondary issue compared to putting out such high quality minis...Oh, wait. MessoSpit, 3" gun, Pak, etc...

[Uncle_Joe]

Uh, Steve, if the current rules are the result of the team 'sweating the wording' so much then you've got some real incompetents there. Lets think about some results of this 'sweating':

Initial transport rules (cavalry in trucks anyone?)
Initial aircraft rules
All current Hero rules
At leat half the SA's as written
A fair number of points costs

All of the above, to me, show an almost total disregard for play balance and historical reality in a game.

Thats different than the editing and wording though for the most part. Design intent is no considered (beyond conveying the meaning) when doing this type of work. I'm not excusing some of the poor rules/ruling and things you listed above, but that not on the editing and wording people, but on the design side.

[Hum_35711]

Uh, Steve, if the current rules are the result of the team 'sweating the wording' so much then you've got some real incompetents there. Lets think about some results of this 'sweating':

Initial transport rules (cavalry in trucks anyone?)
Initial aircraft rules
All current Hero rules
At leat half the SA's as written
A fair number of points costs

All of the above, to me, show an almost total disregard for play balance and historical reality in a game. Rather it seems as if the rules are just a secondary issue compared to putting out such high quality minis...Oh, wait. MessoSpit, 3" gun, Pak, etc...

Did you just smoke Steve? Dude that guy just judo-chopped Steve right on the side of the head!?! ouch

[GijoeNumberOne]

A few years ago, I wrote down a very detailed set of rules for a one-on-one Western miniature game. I have no idea exactly how many hours I spent writing down the rules. The game had been heavily tested for over 6 months before I wrote the "official" rules. Guess what?

The first game played after the rules were printed ended up in a state of confusion. One of the players (what we term as a "rules lawyer") found so many loopholes that the game prematurely ended. What had happened was that what most of us took as common understanding (in one case, a man hit in the chest by a heavy rifle would fall down), and therefore not written down as such, was disputed by the rule lawyer. As such, he claimed that his character, hit in the chest with a .58 cal. rifle at close range, could still run his full distance and stab an opponent with his knife.

My point is, whenever rules are written, there are those who will look and say: Hey, it doesn’t say I can’t! With the plethora of screw-ball rules A&AM has, I have to admit that they cannot possibly foresee every contingency. But, as I did, they should at least recognize their holes and plug them. It took a lot of screaming from the community before they cleared up the most glaring errors (calvary riding jeeps, for instance) and they seem to be dragging their feet in clearing up the holes they created with Set IV.

Let’s see what happens in the next month, that is how long it took me to rewrite my rules (If a dynamite package explodes in a character’s hand, the character holding the dynamite package is immediately dead, blown to pieces, KIA, ceases to exist, has no body for its legs to carry, is worm food, take the playing piece and throw it out the window.)

[Carlos_Desousa]

(If a dynamite package explodes in a character’s hand, the character holding the dynamite package is immediately dead, blown to pieces, KIA, ceases to exist, has no body for its legs to carry, is worm food, take the playing piece and throw it out the window.)

Yah...so what your saying is he can't ride in a jeep? Even if he's on or off his horse? Ha Ha
Good post though.

[Qmark]

With the plethora of screw-ball rules A&AM has, I have to admit that they cannot possibly foresee every contingency.Which is why there needs to be an A&AM Comprehensive rules as soon as possible. Cover as many contingencies as possible, or the mutual hatred between Power and Dogma will just get worse.

[cannonfodder]

IMHO
To misquote a famous anarchist quotation "When the revolution comes the {rules} lawyers will be the first ones up against the wall." People (I would have said idiots but I don't want to offend anyone) who think that shot in the chest didn't equal fall down and think that artillery belongs in pillboxes have no place at any table I play at. It has been my experience that rules lawyers tend (but are not exclusively) to be poor tactical players.
I understand that in a tourney with money at stake things change. That's true, unfortunate, but true. Once again, that's one of the reasons I've never been tempted to tourney.
I understand that rules conflicts come up (I recently wondered out loud if you could back into difficult terrain so that if you failed the movement roll you wouldn't have your rear exposed.) In this instance it is clearly stated in the rules that you can't do that but the idea remains the same. I have yet to have a situation come up that a logical conversation couldn't fix.

[Kaufschtick]

Did you just smoke Steve? Dude that guy just judo-chopped Steve right on the side of the head!?! ouch

My wife kept asking me what I was laughing at! LOL! :D It took me three tries to catch my breath! Don't get me wrong, no disrespect intended to anyone, that was just a funny line! I laughed until my sides hurt! Visions of an Austin Powers "Judo Chop!" in my mind...too funny. :D

[Hum_35711]

My wife kept asking me what I was laughing at! LOL! :D It took me three tries to catch my breath! Don't get me wrong, no disrespect intended to anyone, that was just a funny line! I laughed until my sides hurt! Visions of an Austin Powers "Judo Chop!" in my mind...too funny. :D

Steve, you know we love you! I was just being silly. You're actually doing a great job.

[GijoeNumberOne]

People (I would have said idiots but I don't want to offend anyone) who think that shot in the chest didn't equal fall down and think that artillery belongs in pillboxes have no place at any table I play at. It has been my experience that rules lawyers tend (but are not exclusively) to be poor tactical players. . . .
I understand that rules conflicts come up (I recently wondered out loud if you could back into difficult terrain so that if you failed the movement roll you wouldn't have your rear exposed.) In this instance it is clearly stated in the rules that you can't do that but the idea remains the same. I have yet to have a situation come up that a logical conversation couldn't fix.
This is the crux of my situation, in an attempt to win at any cost (or logical conclusion) some of the players I have dealt with have no compunction to exploiting rule deletions to their benefit. I agree that they are very poor tacticians and because of this, they strike out for any kind of victory they can find. I shrug my shoulders at them because, sadly, my gaming circle is becoming smaller each month due to the ever-more foolish rules from WotC/AH/Hasbro.

As for my personal game, I have given the ultimatum, “my way, or the highway”. Yes, it’s crude, but I have to take a stand somewhere it the name of “realism.”

I am too old for kid games and I would rather quit gaming then play by kiddie rules.

[cannonfodder]

Agreed, the trick is balancing simplicity and quickness of play against keeping the "feel" of World War II. Everyone wants to play at different points on that spectrum. I've been lucky to find a small group who play a "relatively" friendly game, there's certainly no money on the table, and we'll all happily get creamed before we'd start arguing if the rules allow something or not.

[NorthernRommel]

Which is why there needs to be an A&AM Comprehensive rules as soon as possible. Cover as many contingencies as possible, or the mutual hatred between Power and Dogma will just get worse.

To fix AAM at this point would require dropping some SA's out right. It would also require dropping some pieces outright. It can be done and still allow the game to function -- however the longer this goes on the worse the situation will get.

There is going to come a point where no one will be happy (it is close to that now). Either they take the historic road or the "bang bang your dead" road which the kiddies and beer gamers want. Which is why I think WOTC would rather not change things at this point because being a kiddie game company (read Hasbro) then are going for the preceived wider audience.

Well personally I do not see the process of change as impossible (basic and detailed rules would work), they have to have a go ahead from corporate wigs for any kind of revamp. As much as I can see their point form a company point of view, I do not agree with it.

Pointing fingers of blame is a exercise in frustration, and not really constructive. Both sides ended up feeling wounded and nothing really gets done. I would really rather say screw the old system, and just fix things by replacing it with a new system. But fixing the problem requires being proactive now. If they concentrate on that I think it can be done. If a single human like me can do it with no resources, then I am sure WOTC/AH with its money, resouces and people can do it.

[Qmark]

To fix AAM at this point would require dropping some SA's out right. It would also require dropping some pieces outright.Umm... you lost me. I have no idea what you are getting at, apart from rediculous mass eratta and rampant bannings.

The rules need to be be both direct and legalese'd, much like the Magic rules are now:

### <SA>
<what the SA does>

###.#
<when <SA> matters>

###.#
<specific interraction with <other SA(s)>>

###.#
<special rule that prevents what some guy did once because "it doesn't say I can't">

What everyone has to accept is that the powergamers will and likely already have begun exploiting the poor excuse for rules we have now. Setting as much in stone as possible serves to both limit rampant abuse and cut down on misinterpretations caused by not reading current erratta and/or general idiocy.

The Magic comprules, as is, handles 99% of whatever situation some jackass is trying to abuse or some idiot simply doesn't know about. In the small handfull of A&AM games I've stumbled through, the "advanced rulebook" covers maybe fifteen percent of what freaky **** happens in a game.

(sorry if I come off as a bit angry)

[NorthernRommel]

ok well I will clarify........

1) Some SAs are broken and need to be banned. Their impact at the moment is bad, but it will only get worse. It does not take a rocket scientist to see some of the obvious things (and there are probably a few rocket scientists loitering on this group) :rolleyes:

2) Some SA's merely need repairing - like transport, improvish (inf only), AVREs ability to mow down obstacles in a single bound (should be limit one bound per turn), etc etc.

3) The longer it is broken -- the more some people will scream when you try to get rid of the failed rules / abilities. Rules are not so bad cause they just require some rewording and clarification for interaction of SAs as you mentioned. Some of the power gamers are in their glee now cause of this.

4) Don't add broken rules to fix broken rules. Rewrite things now, cause ten rewrites later no one is gonna pay attention.

Sure in a perfect world perfect rules would be all the time - but come on. Spitmisser and other honest mistakes are human. But something is amiss here. These new rules are either not well thought out somehow, or the testing is substandard, or there is something else wrong with their production priorities.

I am just trying to call it as I see it so as to hopefully make people at WOTC stand up and notice. These are constructive - not negative issues (well not negative yet least ways). It is all fixable.

None of this is new to the regulars - just not much of it is addressed except with the odd bandage errata between releases. How long will that hold water?

[Qmark]

Methinks a major oversight was printing SA rulestext right on the damn cards instead of a "This guy has this ability. Look it the hell up in the rulebook" model.

When something like Banzai Charge doesn't really do what the statcard says it does, the fighting tends to escape the little paper maps.

[NorthernRommel]

Oh I totally agree with you there. A major mistake on their part.

Maybe someone thought little kiddies dont like to look in rule books. Hard to say without the designers explaining.

[Qmark]

More than likely, it was a corporate edict to keep the official rules for any given expansion down to what could fit on the back side of the checklist insert.

[GraphCorp]

Armchair Generals,

There are always two types of players - the ones who play for fun (and tend to live longer) and the ones who play in tournaments (who tend to sue longer).

As long as there are tournaments (and I hope that will be for a long time), why not address the rules issue this way: compile the rules for that specific tournament and hand them out to the players 30 minutes before they are scheduled to play their first match. That way, everybody has a level playing field and no feelings can get hurt. When prizes and/or money are at stake, players (aka humans) will always look for an advantage. And yes, I know that there will still be those who try to bend the wording to their interpretation, but it should cut down on the more flagrant fouls...

While I have never been to a sanctioned AAM tournament, could somebody tell whether judges are present? If they are, then their word should be final. If they aren't there, then maybe this should examined...

As for the "fun players", let common sense prevail. You'll get a lot more out of your gaming experience...

[Cennedi]

IMHO
and think that artillery belongs in pillboxes have no place at any table I play at.

historically artillery was placed in pillboxes though.

[DCal12]

I guess my thing is do we want a rule book like ASL that is a three-ring binder and the minute you pull that out you scare the person you are trying to teach. Not to mention I bet rule lawyers still tear that rule book apart too. Or do we want rules that are somewhat easy. For example the discussion over Heros and snipers. it is easier to explain to someone that the class of "soldier" can spawn heros, not well the class of soldiers can spawn heros except for...... I really dont care if my opponent spawns a hero from a sniper. Is it realistic? NO its a game. (note: I have no clue if they can or not since i have not seen the rules on this yet). My point is when you have a rule book with 32 pages including charts and examples, that is only 5.5 x 8.5 you are going to have generalizations. I have about a 100 board games from Gamers, Avalon Hill, GDW, VG, GMT and AP that I have not touched since this game came out, because now I can set up a game, teach a person and play in one evening.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Dan

[Tico303]

As long as there are tournaments (and I hope that will be for a long time), why not address the rules issue this way: compile the rules for that specific tournament and hand them out to the players 30 minutes before they are scheduled to play their first match. That way, everybody has a level playing field and no feelings can get hurt.

While I don't play tourneys, I think this would not work very well. At least, 30 Minutes aren't sufficient, because you may already have constructed/planned with an army in a way to profit from a combo wich isn't legal by the rules. The timeframe may be too small to correct this => feelings are still hurt.

[Qmark]

I guess my thing is do we want a rule book like ASL that is a three-ring binder and the minute you pull that out you scare the person you are trying to teach.There is a vast distinction between a 'quick-and-dirty' rulebook that teaches the basics of the game and a comprehensive rules that covers virtually everything.

There is generally no difficulty in teaching someone the sequence of game phases and the effects of Disrupted and Damaged. However, there are several times when an arcane instance would pop up during play wherein I would want to say "That's rule five-oh-nine-point-two" and point to the exact 509.2 in a definitive rules document (or whatever-the-hell rule actually covers that arcane instance).

[cannonfodder]

I come down in the non-tournament common sense side of this discussion. Maybe it's because I don't play for money, or maybe it's because I'm not a win-at-all-costs kinda guy when I wargame, but I have yet to come up against a situation that couldn't be talked out in a few minutes. Side A makes their point, side B responds, general conversation ensues, problem solved.
I'm sure artillery was put in pillboxes in the actual conflict but, for me, this doesn't work in game format. If artillery is saving at 3+ then, again just for me, that's uberartillery. Besides, you'd never get a Flak 88 through that little tiny door on the back of the pillbox:D
Still having fun playin the game. fodder