"Most Annoying Rule in a Wargame You Play?" Topic

In the miniature wargaming rulesets that you enjoy, is there a particular rule that just irritates you?

That's why I stopped playing those rules.

Teleporting US tank destroyers in Flames of War.

You're right. That is dumb. And so is calling suppressed tanks "bailed out ".

Guys, it's an abstraction. the TDs don't really teleport…it represents the ability of the TDs to sneak, peek, and ambush. But I suspect you know that.

In the real world, if you're ambush by TDS, you probably don't like that either.

I've never obeyed the rule in The Sword & the Flame that dictates that whenever a Leader is hit, it's always the senior leader. Magic bullets! That's too goofy for me. I dice off randomly between all leaders eligible to be hit.

Command Radius and waiting for "reload" cards after firing; rules that tie the number of figures left in a unit to determine how well they function….How most "morale rules" ignore the unit's leadership when calculating "morale checks"….rules where ALL units rated as a "class" (like average, veteran, etc) ALL are cookie cut to perform the same despite the fact that each unit is uniquely different (ie: John Smith, with all his personality traits and skills, fills the ranks of all units at the same time!)

Now how do I really feel?……./>)

Tom, I can always write a design note that explains how all that has been abstracted into a simple D6 roll.6 and you succeed. Good enough? :^)

Rules which are particularly silly I ignore, modify or just don't play the entire set.

Some rules are inherently silly (like the attack first mechanism in CnC Napoleonics) yet bizarrely produce a good game, so I let them stand.

Locally, we tend to rewrite the most annoying bits.

Phil

I don't track wounds for natives in TSATF – a hit's an out-of-action.

Hi, Vince. But does that note reflect historical precident? If so, then possibly I could. Look, I'll play the game of the day, but it does not mean I would enjoy it to the max if the results and mechanisms are based upon faulty value sets. :^)

The rule that prevents me from winning. Otherwise, I'm cool.

The "no pre-measuring rule" which is darn near universal in miniatures games.

Equally followed with the no pre-checking LOS in Advanced Squad Leader rule.

A rule I personally like, but seems to flummox many players is the "half the figures in the unit fire" in Disposable Heroes.

Sorry Dynaman8789, I believe in the no pre-measuring rule. But I respect your opinion.

Using 6 sided dice instead of percentage dice.

Bolt Action: a unit being assaulted miraculously sheds all its pin markers.

Pass-through fire, in every ruleset I've played that has it. It has been the single biggest source of atguments I have seen in 45+ years of miniatures gaming.

Rick

The "no pre-measuring rule" which is darn near universal in miniatures games.

actually relatively uncommon in ancient/medieval games outside Warhammer and its derivitives … (and yes, irritating and usually inappropriate – but that's why we would not use it … ) …

Phil

Pass-through fire, in every ruleset I've played that has it.

??? What is "Pass-through fire"?

Pass-through fire is usually being able to fire upon units at any point of their last turn movement.

It's an alternative to a reaction fire mechanic, and I'll agree, I'm not a fan.

The original Chain Reaction had it where a Rep 3 shooter was unable to hit targets in cover, but that got fixed.

Allowing a battalion in the Seven Years War to make a triple move up to point blank musketry range and fire, while the enemy quietly watches them march, dress lines, raise muskets and shoot. Caught totally off guard by this sudden surprise attack I guess.

link

Black Powder. A lot of people have suggested fixes; I think the best is simply swapping the turn sequence to Fire, THEN Move.

Any op fire rule that makes it easier to hit targets than in the aimed fire phase.

The illegal procedure rule in Bloodbowl.

> Sorry Dynaman8789, I believe in the no pre-measuring rule. But I respect your opinion.

I hate it (no pre-measuring) since it is usually inappropriate for the commander position one is usually playing. It also helps those who could visualize distances on a table, in our group we had some construction guys who could pinput the precise distance on a table… (took care of them by using a custom ruler size which threw them off)

Johnny Rebb had a nice bit on this – you rolled a die based on unit quality to determine when they would shoot, poor troops had a tendency to fire too soon while veterans would not.

In ASL with the sighting check being done AFTER declaring a shot it lead to shots being taken when no target was visible – if no target was visible your troops would not (generally) fire in the first place.

The intercept or counter-charge rule in horse and musket sets where cavalry can by some mechanism activate during enemy moves to rush out and charge things.

I see it crop up in rules and it feels like a cultural hang-over 'other rules have an intercept charge rule, so we must have one'.

Now there are some rules where the mechanism probably works fine, but others where it just doesn't fit into the processes of those rules and it sticks out like a bolted-on after-thought.

Regards

David F Brown

Cavalry and infantry units cannot charge the same unit in a turn.

The most annoying rule in the rules I currently use is the Disorder versus Shaken thing in Black Powder, which I know should be simple but some of the guys I game with always think they are the same thing

It's odd that something so obviously deeply flawed was accepted and made it into the published BP book, Tony S. As written you have to think carefully about whether it's even realistic to start a game at the beginning of the turn sequence, or – to avoid the situation you describe – deploy the attackers in musket range of the defenders and start with the defenders' fire phase.

Weird discussion.

If you don't like a particular rule, just change or replace or drop it …
Why do people keep using rules that irritate them?

Either you accept that the ruleset was designed as a coherent whole, and that there is a reason why a particular rule was included – although perhaps you as a player do not see or understand that reason.
Or you accept that a ruleset is intended as a set of guidelines that have a DIY-nature, and you plug in or take out components according to your own preferences.

If you are in the first group, don't complain about a specific rule in a ruleset. If you are in the 2nd group, change whatever rules you don't like.

Overall, I think that wargamers as players overanalyze rules too often, thinking there is some godlike authority that has written them and we must study and interpret them and devote our lives to them. While in reality, the ruleswriter is a wargamer just like you and me, who has put just a little bit more thought into his gaming and did take the effort to write it all down.

Less complaining, more gaming!

+1 Phil.

Phil's approach works with a group who are flexible and willing to modify printed rules. Most of the gamers I've known want to follow rules exlicitly as written which makes that problematic, and at the same time preserve their right to bellyache. I haven't met too many group 1 gamers who can appreciate the effect, without getting caught up in the mechanism, of the rule.

Rick

Oh, the original grenade throwing rules in Rogue Trader were pretty naff.

Place the template, roll for deviation, then roll to hit for each guy under the template.
Your Ballistic Skill does NOT affect the deviation roll but it does affect the hit-chance within the blast template.

Say what? :-)

The rule in DBM/DBMM where if you break an enemy command, all your troops within a certain distance become impetuous and potentially out of control. Actually the whole impetuous/out of control thing

Its usually rules that are NOT there which are most irritating….)

"Please see this non-existing chapter for all possible modifiers" :-)

Rogue Trader managed to miss explaining how melee attacks against vehicles worked.

ASL has it where almost everything requires rolling low on 2D6. Fire, morale, close combat, all is roll low to make things happen.

Except for (if I remember right), terrain catching fire. That is roll high instead.

Classic (original) D&D. If you can figure out how combat actually works from the little brown books, without drawing on your knowledge of future games, you're a better man than many.

Rolemaster, one of my favourite RPG's, has something like 5 skills related to healing herbs, but no shield skill.

No challenging opponents to duels to the death…

When sm I ever going to find use for my swords/dueling pistols.

Squares or charging cav. that always take one casualty as in NB. Too restrictive arc of fire like TSATF. Keeping track of wounded. Rolling before you move like in F&F.

In Sword and the Flame, the "assaulting walls" rules really are a hot mess. Takes three successful turns to get over a defended wall. I always tell myself I will never play in another tSatF game with a wall to assault, but with pretty terrain, I always play anyway, and am annoyed anew.

We ended up modifying the TSATF wall rules to make them work better. We just had the Moroccan tribes take a French fort using them and they work well enough.

Why do people keep using rules that irritate them?

Because in my case you have to get everyone else to buy into the changes. It is usually easier to just play it the way the author intended.

I tried to do away with casualties in TSATF, but the rest of the club would not have any of it. So if I want players, then I have to play it with wounded.

I don't like to use modified rules at a convention. Because not everyone who has played the rules will agree with my modifications. At cons I play them straight up.