PDA

View Full Version : Abusing the Rules: Rubberbanding, this can't be right



Chris Copeland
02-04-2012, 11:26 PM
Friends, I was introduced to a new tactic recently called "rubberbanding." It seems completely abusive and seems to run counter to rules as intended. I'd REALLY love to hear from someone at Privateer on this one because it seems so wrong. Here goes:

You are fighting against Denegra. She has a Skarlock and a unit of Mechanithrals. The Mechanithrals advance across the board but (and here is the part that raises my ire) ONE of the Mechanithrals stays put back by the Skarlock. It purposefully goes out of formation. Now the main body of Mechanithrals advance across the board and into danger. However, one lone Mechanithral stays back out of harms way AND within easy spell range of the Skarlock. As needed the Skarlock can cast Ghost Walk on the Mechanithral unit by casting it on the one Mechanithral near it... completely out of harms way!

The "out of formation" Mechanithral DOES have to take a leadership test or flee every turn BUT that doesn't matter at all. The rules allow for it to flee zero inches! Likewise, the same out of formation Mechanithral is supposed to move toward the unit leader every turn but is likewise allowed to make a "full advance" of zero inches. The out-of-formation trooper simply stays back and acts as a conduit for the main body of the unit. Safely in the rear with the gear, it is there for the caster to buff (and thus buff the main body of the unit).

It seems like those engaged in "rubberbanding" are abusing a small weakness in what "full advance" means and a weakness in what "flee" means. In the final analysis, fleeing makes no difference nor do rules about models trying to get back into formation. Because of these flaws, players can keep back single warrior models and use them as conduits to buff units who are half the table away. That seems antithetical to the spirit of the game. The example I give above has got to be the tip of the iceberg. I'm sure there are far more abusive uses for "rubberbanding" than just getting your Mechanithrals to have Ghost Walk without exposing your caster (or Skarlock) to danger.

What do y'all think? Cheers. Copeland

memnarch_129
02-05-2012, 02:13 AM
While there is nothing specific in the FAQ my opinion is its like unit attachments. They have to be in formation to gain the buff. Honestly I cant believe people are doing this. As this is one of the highest levels of WAAC/Douchebaggery I could ever think of. Id suggest you find another group to play with or push the issue. Is this being done in casual games or is it in a league/tourney?? If its a tourney Id be calling the organizer over. If its in casual games Id refuse to play anyone that trys to pull anything similiar to this.

Chris Copeland
02-05-2012, 01:17 PM
The jury is in. Rubberbanding is completely legal. Oi-vay. I spent some time on the Privateer Press board last night and the response I got from the Infernals and PressGangers left no doubt. I have moved through all seven stages of Nerd Grief on this one and have come to the final stage: Nerd Acceptance. It is what it is. Cheers! Copeland

Here are the Seven Stages of Nerd Grief:


Nerd Shock and Disbelief: Are you kidding me? That’s not a rule! There is NO way that’s legal in this game!
Nerd Denial: I’m not playing by that goddam rule! It goes completely against the Spirit of the Game!
Nerd Anger: Man, the guys who wrote this game suck! The guys who found this exploit suck harder! Arrrrgh! I’m SO mad!
Nerd Bargaining: Screw it! I’ll go play that other game... or I’ll play this one if everyone agrees to play it the way I think it should be played!
Nerd Guilt: I’ll buy a blister pack or two... that’ll make the pain go away... crap, now I just feel bad that I spent the grocery money on models... now I feel guilty AND I’m still upset about this rule!
Nerd Depression: I hate this hobby. This sucks...
Nerd Acceptance: Fine. That’s what the rule is. That’s how everyone else is playing it. I guess I will just keep playing. Hey, anyone up for a game?

cptjoeyg
02-05-2012, 03:53 PM
Like i have said before -

"if you feel like your are getting cheated or it feels like you are cheating someone, than you are playing right"

theHman
02-06-2012, 02:31 PM
I don't have my rulebook with me, but I'm pretty sure that a grunt that starts the activation out of cmd range of the unit leader MUST advance (more than 0") and end it's movement closer to the leader than when he started.

I'll double check for you later tonight when I get home.

Chris Copeland
02-06-2012, 04:40 PM
Sorry, Hman... I've been around the block on this one with the Infernals and everyone else over on the Privateer Press board. Troopers are required to make a full advance back toward their unit... but a full advance can be as little as zero inches. It is what it is.

I have come completely to terms with this rule... what I call "Nerd Acceptance." My initial visceral reaction was based on my belief that this IS a legitimate rule BUT it seems (at first blush) NOT to be an intended rule. I think that someone pushed the wording of the rules as hard as they could looking for a metaphorical seam to pop. They found it, popped it, and rushed right through the gap. I do not admire that.

I am a believer in the spirit of the law as well as the word of the law. Privateer went on to legitimize this by doing nothing. Shame on them. I am glad I found this out (and worked my way through my reaction) in a non-tourney setting. I think I was most distressed by this twisting of syntax was that it ran counter to what I believed about WM/H: that it is the tightest rule system out there. However, I'm still old fashioned enough to believe in the spirit of the rules and I think Rubberbanding goes against them.

So here I am: a player who might engage in Rubberbanding in some sort of 'Ard Boyz/Steamroller situation and exceedingly unlikely to use it during the form of play I most enjoy: casual play with my compadres. Cheers, all!

whitestar333
02-09-2012, 11:20 AM
I really don't see it being a big deal. Having a unit of mechanithralls that far forward while Denny stays back is totally fine with me, as I can deal with them one at a time. So what if they get that buff? They'd get it another way and it doesn't seem broken to me. Does it seem a bit silly? Yes. Broken? Hardly. Most WM/H games are played so close anyway that your opponent keeping his warcaster back is likely going to be more of a detriment to him/her (fewer models caught by feat, for example) and that skarlock will be staying back so it can't throw out an offensive spell. Personally, I'm more worried about Denny's debuffs rather than her buffs - especially on easy-to-kill mechanithralls. Similarly, you can just tag a model with a spell like Hex Blast, Purification, or other abilities that remove upkeeps and your problem is solved.

Again, it might seem like cheating, but in the end there are so many ways to deal with it and your opponent is likely going to be at some kind of disadvantage anyway that it's not a big deal. Try playing with and against some other factions besides Cryx and you'll find that they seem much less "cheaty".

Tamwulf
02-11-2012, 11:25 AM
Play scenarios or some of the Steamroller scenarios, and "rubberbanding" will quickly become a very bad idea.

MaxKool
02-21-2012, 11:23 AM
Friends, I was introduced to a new tactic recently called "rubberbanding." It seems completely abusive and seems to run counter to rules as intended. I'd REALLY love to hear from someone at Privateer on this one because it seems so wrong. Here goes:

You are fighting against Denegra. She has a Skarlock and a unit of Mechanithrals. The Mechanithrals advance across the board but (and here is the part that raises my ire) ONE of the Mechanithrals stays put back by the Skarlock. It purposefully goes out of formation. Now the main body of Mechanithrals advance across the board and into danger. However, one lone Mechanithral stays back out of harms way AND within easy spell range of the Skarlock. As needed the Skarlock can cast Ghost Walk on the Mechanithral unit by casting it on the one Mechanithral near it... completely out of harms way!

The "out of formation" Mechanithral DOES have to take a leadership test or flee every turn BUT that doesn't matter at all. The rules allow for it to flee zero inches! Likewise, the same out of formation Mechanithral is supposed to move toward the unit leader every turn but is likewise allowed to make a "full advance" of zero inches. The out-of-formation trooper simply stays back and acts as a conduit for the main body of the unit. Safely in the rear with the gear, it is there for the caster to buff (and thus buff the main body of the unit).

It seems like those engaged in "rubberbanding" are abusing a small weakness in what "full advance" means and a weakness in what "flee" means. In the final analysis, fleeing makes no difference nor do rules about models trying to get back into formation. Because of these flaws, players can keep back single warrior models and use them as conduits to buff units who are half the table away. That seems antithetical to the spirit of the game. The example I give above has got to be the tip of the iceberg. I'm sure there are far more abusive uses for "rubberbanding" than just getting your Mechanithrals to have Ghost Walk without exposing your caster (or Skarlock) to danger.

What do y'all think? Cheers. Copeland

Honestly man, I read your two posts over on the PP forums and still dont see a problem. To be honest the game is designed with this in mind. Some casters have incredibly short ranges on their spells, IE trolls (alot of 6" spells) With medium based inf. Ruber banding is the only realistic way to buff some units.

Realy its NO diffeant than having a unit in a long conga line in an attempt to block some of the table, its just with the spellcasting u seem to get n advantage... Hell, I do this all the time and dont even need to break command alot of the time.

Say 6" on the low side for command, thats 1foot radius.

So I have my furthest back guy 6" from commander who u place in the middle of the unit, The lead models in the unit 6" ahead of the commander.

U can quite often get a buff out this way without the other trick, but it HARDLY breaks the game.... Serioulsy go read some of the more OTT feats if u want to go "OMG thats sooo OP!!"

Basicly, WM/H is a game of "WTF! I cant belive u can do that" U just need to suck it up and be ready for it next time... Page 5 man... page 5....

wittdooley
02-21-2012, 12:33 PM
Basicly, WM/H is a game of "WTF! I cant belive u can do that" U just need to suck it up and be ready for it next time... Page 5 man... page 5....

And therein lies one of the major problems I have with WM/Hordes, and why I only play it with my friends over some beers. I don't see any fun in the above statement, particularly when d-bags like that are given the crutch of "Page 5" to fall back on.

Kovnik Obama
02-21-2012, 05:29 PM
Well the main problem there is seeing this as an abuse, and not just your own ignorance. Which this is all this is :

The formation rules are clear : it doesn't say anything about the abilities listed on the officer's card. And rules include conditions of formation when they need to.

The morale rules are clear : you know when you can and when you can't activate an out-of-formation model

The movement rules are clear : you can do a full advance of 0". When you can't, or when you can't benefit from a special rule because of a 0" movement, it's included in the rule, or FAQed (like the 0" trample).

So the only reason why rubberbanding comes as a surprise, is because you haven't equated all those facts with each other. Saying this is frustrating, and that p.5 comes as an excuse to everyone who actually can figure out those interactions, well, that's just against the spirit of a competitive game. Which is, in essence, what all war-games are.

And honestly, these tricks are about all that remains from formation rules from MkI, which I loved and hoped they would have expanded upon. So I really don't see a problem. Bring snipers, or solo hunters. That's what there are there for.

wittdooley
02-21-2012, 08:06 PM
You don't think that violates the spirit of what a "unit" is though? By choosing to stay out of formation and make no attempt to go back, why is that model still considered to benefit it has no Interest in being a part of.

In my opinion it's incredibly cheesy and, like Chris said, seems to violate any "spirit" that would ever exist in regards to unit cohesion.

Kovnik Obama
02-21-2012, 09:24 PM
Depends on the ability itself, in my opinion. If it's getting a boost to movement and DEF, like for the Winter Guard, then, 'fluffily' it's the training they've received from the UA, or it's specialty, that is represented by the ability. All the warriors don't necessarily lose that training since they can't see the officer. It's a fluffy explanation, but it's all I need.

Plus you do trade the ability to use 2 model's combat action, and risk losing the Officer to sniping fire somewhere you can't field promote anyone.


I am a believer in the spirit of the law as well as the word of the law. Privateer went on to legitimize this by doing nothing. Shame on them.

Except you don't have any way of knowing what you assert. The spirit of WM is taking the rules as presented and bringing on your A game. It's aggressive strategic gameplay. You have ample tools to deal with situations like these.

Chris Copeland
02-22-2012, 12:29 AM
I posted what I posted over on the PP board whilst still in the early stages of Nerd Grief. It got me banned for a week. By the next morning I was at Stage 7: Nerd Acceptance. it is what it is...

Now, I still think that the Spirit of the Rules matter. I still think that "rubberbanding" is an abuse of syntax that was missed by the authors. OK. The game goes on. Just because some uber-competetive rules lawyer shakes things up doesn't mean I have to like it. Truth be told: I'll probably respect players less who engage in such shenanigans. However, the longer I play these games the less likely I am to be involved in Steamroller/'Ard Boyz type play. As time goes on I am more and more likely only to play games with my friends (and preferably only using painted armies).

So, you'll get no argument from me that rubberbanding is illegal. I will continue to believe that is is an unforeseen exploit that PP legitimized by not addressing. Cheers! Copeland

Dru
02-23-2012, 06:06 PM
I don't have my rulebook with me, but I'm pretty sure that a grunt that starts the activation out of cmd range of the unit leader MUST advance (more than 0") and end it's movement closer to the leader than when he started.


Doe this not mean the unit leader can not move , or the grunt will be futher away , so it will need to move at a minimum of the same speed ? ie unit commander moves forward 5 inches , so the grunt has to move 5.1 inchs towards the leader ?

NinjaBaggins
03-05-2012, 02:22 PM
And therein lies one of the major problems I have with WM/Hordes, and why I only play it with my friends over some beers. I don't see any fun in the above statement, particularly when d-bags like that are given the crutch of "Page 5" to fall back on.

I'm completely the same way. The level of douchebaggery that occurs in the Warmachine/Hordes player base has encouraged me to NEVER play in competitive arenas.

As for this rubberbanding, it makes my jaw drop a little that it would be a legal move :(

cody
03-05-2012, 05:27 PM
As others have already alluded to, doing this means the unit can't control objectives in scenarios, so it's not without drawbacks.

Nidirom
03-05-2012, 06:36 PM
This makes me wish I played a more buffcentric army.

Dais
03-05-2012, 08:14 PM
I read the thread on the PP forums, and as cheesy as it sounds, it isn't something that will come up often. Only a few casters would consider making a single exposed model with no or low health a lynchpin of their tactics. Most factions can bring arc nodes for a more reliable method of applying spells upfield. As a previous poster mentioned, scenario play makes this very unappealing since the one guy in the back prevents your unit from scoring.
I can see this being useful with the vanilla standard bearers that have no rules other than cmd reroll though. "If you forget your weapon you are designated the buff monkey -now stand in the back and think about what you've done" More than to help buffs, this tactic can probably better serve you in denying a model or unit it's prey ability, the full prey unit has to die for a new prey to be selected so running one guy into the back corner makes it very hard for them to keep it in the late game.

Face Stabbity
03-06-2012, 09:05 AM
Doesn't page 5 also say not to use page 5 as an excuse to be a jerk? You're supposed to be ruthless, but I don't think there's ever cause to try to exploit every technicality possible just to win at a game that doesn't matter, especially if it's at the expense of your opponent having fun as well.

cody
03-06-2012, 11:45 AM
Getting hit by deneghra's feat isn't "fun" either, but I'm not about to tell people to stop playing her, especially in a competitive environment.

If you want to talk about really broken rules, look at how shield guard (doesn't) work. By comparison this is pretty innocent.

ElectricPaladin
03-06-2012, 02:51 PM
Getting hit by deneghra's feat isn't "fun" either, but I'm not about to tell people to stop playing her, especially in a competitive environment.

If you want to talk about really broken rules, look at how shield guard (doesn't) work. By comparison this is pretty innocent.

Well, you could argue that this makes Deneghra's feat also a flawed piece of game design, much like the rubberbanding ruling. This is a game, after all. It's supposed to be fun.

tyrant of khador
03-06-2012, 04:19 PM
I would like to say by no means am I an exp WM/H player, but WM/H is a game of opportunity and misdirection. Yes I don't believe rubberbanding is legal, it is what it is and with that use it against your opponent and make him feel he is protected. With that most games end with that of false sense of security.

Vinsklortho
03-06-2012, 05:29 PM
They lose access to one of their infantry models in order to get a buff on a unit. Its not terribly much different from using an arc node. For a second I thought this thread was going to be about yo-yoing which is drastically more annoying.

Emerett
03-06-2012, 08:37 PM
I just wouldn't play against somebody pulling that.

You may need to find a new group.

Fysh
03-07-2012, 11:45 AM
I agree that this may be legal, but that doesn't mean it should really be used, especially in friendly games. I'm just in the process of learning the game with a friend, we normally play 40k, and something like this would get you punched in the dick.

We've never played in a store, even thought our FLGS has a pretty good crew, mostly for issues like this. I play the game to have fun, not to get pissed on by a douchebag that see's winning as the only way to have fun at a game.

cody
03-07-2012, 12:30 PM
The idea that you would physically assault someone for playing completely within the rules begs the question of who is really being a (insert sexist insult here).

If you don't like it in friendly games, just ask them to play a different caster, same as if it was deneghra you were tired of.

In a tournament, you'd better have a plan to deal with it, just like you'd better have a plan to deal with def19 kayazy or getting hit by eiryss + a feat and losing an entire turn, or any of the other "broken" stuff in the game.

Kovnik Obama
03-07-2012, 12:36 PM
It isn't clear whether or not it's an intentional rule design, and usually PP isn't to bad at admitting their mistake. They will FAQ things inside a ridiculous short time, and when interactions happen that are broken, the player base hear about it fast enough (ex; the SW broken rule). For the time being, and knowing new UA and Attachments comes out that still imply rubberbanding, it should be assumed that the game is being balanced taking it in account. Maybe you feel that sucks, but at least that's better than being a blind interaction the designers prefers to ignore, like some people here assume.

We might still get a MKii Remix rule set, who knows? In the meantime, the fact that I have to sacrifice taking part in Orders and * actions so that I can rubberband a spell on a unit is enough of a trade off.

Anyway, I just want to point out that the tactically worst mistake is to decide rubberbanding is unintended and should be ignored as an interaction. If it comes up in a tourney, and you have decided to deny it's existence, you will be the one paying for it. And the more it comes up, the more it will be mentioned to the designers as either a good or a bad thing.

Kovnik Obama
03-07-2012, 12:45 PM
Well, you could argue that this makes Deneghra's feat also a flawed piece of game design, much like the rubberbanding ruling. This is a game, after all. It's supposed to be fun.

Yeah, but it's a wargame, you know? I mean, far from me the intention to tell you how you should view your time with your toy soldiers : if you want to make this a game, fine, but to a lot of us, it's both a game and and a tactical challenge. That means your success will be dependent on how good the choices you make are in the situations you encounter. Your bad choices, or your opponent's good choices might make you very unsuccessful. If that is not fun for you, than you must either become better within the competitive mindset, stop playing a competitive game (i.e. a wargame), or house rule the hell out of the rule set to make it fit your definition of fun.

It is not, however, a design flaw.

GentleBen
03-07-2012, 12:46 PM
I agree that this may be legal, but that doesn't mean it should really be used, especially in friendly games. I'm just in the process of learning the game with a friend, we normally play 40k, and something like this would get you punched in the dick.

We've never played in a store, even thought our FLGS has a pretty good crew, mostly for issues like this. I play the game to have fun, not to get pissed on by a douchebag that see's winning as the only way to have fun at a game.

So I emphasized something there to make an important point. Warmachine is not 40k. There is no burden on the player to try to decide what is sporting. This is because Privateer Press makes a tremendous effort to create rules that are balanced. They aren't perfect at it but they try, and continue to be some of the best in the business in that regard.

People come to Warmachine from 40k all the time and assume it is their business to cry foul on rules that they think are "broken" because that's what they are used to. This is the wrong attitude to have. When you find a rule that seems overpowered, the first thing that comes through your mind should be "in future games, how do I use this to my advantage?" That's because the people at Privateer already know about it, and have accepted it as part of the game. Which means so should you.

If you call someone out for using rules as written you are wrong. Period.

This is something that may take awhile to accept. That's how it was for me. One of the biggest weaknesses Warmachine has a system is the way it can blindside people. Someone does something you didn't know about, you lose when you thought you were ahead, and you feel cheated. All your tactical brilliance was disintegrated by this annoying little move that doesn't seem right (rubberbanding in this case). But the upside is that now you know about it. That means next time you shouldn't be caught off guard. And hopefully it will be your turn to do something amazing and take the win.

Kovnik Obama
03-07-2012, 12:58 PM
People come to Warmachine from 40k all the time and assume it is their business to cry foul on rules that they think are "broken" because that's what they are used to. This is the wrong attitude to have. When you find a rule that seems overpowered, the first thing that comes through your mind should be "in future games, how do I use this to my advantage?" That's because the people at Privateer already know about it, and have accepted it as part of the game. Which means so should you.

If you call someone out for using rules as written you are wrong. Period.

That is entirely false, and more so speaks of Warhammer2Warmachine translation teething pains than finding yourself in disbelief with a ruling. PP have admitted the Shield Wall rule doesn't work as intended. They do make mistake, and sometimes, it's more a problem to fix the mistake than to let it be. It could be this in the case of rubberbanding, because it IS a weird interaction, one which depart with the norm of unit coherency. But it isn't just clearly so.

It is however quite important that players keep questioning the rule set, so that it can improve.

GentleBen
03-07-2012, 01:13 PM
That is entirely false, and more so speaks of Warhammer2Warmachine translation teething pains than finding yourself in disbelief with a ruling. PP have admitted the Shield Wall rule doesn't work as intended. They do make mistake, and sometimes, it's more a problem to fix the mistake than to let it be. It could be this in the case of rubberbanding, because it IS a weird interaction, one which depart with the norm of unit coherency. But it isn't just clearly so.

It is however quite important that players keep questioning the rule set, so that it can improve.

Rubberbanding is 100% supported by the ruleset. This has been confirmed by multiple infernals. Things that don't work as intended get an errata. That's why the errata document exists. Rubberbanding may get an errata someday. Until then you have to play it as written. No matter how against the spirit of the rules you may find it.

There's also a tremendous difference between questioning the ruleset and calling players out for using it. You don't get to pick and choose the rules you like.

j78
03-07-2012, 01:39 PM
There's also a tremendous difference between questioning the ruleset and calling players out for using it. You don't get to pick and choose the rules you like.

well that's not completely true. you get to pick and choose the rules you like, but you still have to follow the ones you don't like :)

Kovnik Obama
03-07-2012, 03:54 PM
Rubberbanding is 100% supported by the ruleset. This has been confirmed by multiple infernals. Things that don't work as intended get an errata. That's why the errata document exists. Rubberbanding may get an errata someday. Until then you have to play it as written. No matter how against the spirit of the rules you may find it.

There's also a tremendous difference between questioning the ruleset and calling players out for using it. You don't get to pick and choose the rules you like.

Except Infernals make rulings, they aren't the game design team. They get to ask what was the intent of the rule, but then are often stuck interpreting the answer in manifested context which weren't planned by the designers. Ask to anyone who contributed to the field test if rubberbanding was an integral part of the rule set redesign, and they'll answer no (I would, and so would all my friends who playtested : I only ever saw rubberbanding appear about 9-12 months ago on Vassal). So it's either something, like Elemental damage, who got intentionally inserted at the end of the playtesting, or it's an unintended error.

Either way, you are wrong about one thing : PP do make mistakes, and sometimes they don't fix them because that would cause to redesign larger parts of the gameplay. Case in point : Shield Wall. Infernals know it's a problem, but won't FAQ it. Case in point : the PoM Battle-Engine caster resurrection shenenigan : doesn't work as intended isn't FAQed. This last one they couldn't even agree on it, and had to double-back on the ruling (at first they said it would be FAQed, then dropped it). Just because Warmahorde is a tight rule set who gets fieldtested extensively doesn't mean it is perfect.

Marshal_Wilhelm
03-07-2012, 03:55 PM
I thought I had left this "should'ing" on people behind when I signed up for WM....

"I don't play to win"
Why is it then that people who say that are often so offended by losing to something they didn't anticipate, be it list building, tactics or rules?

If you are actually playing competitively, and that doesn't necessarily mean tournament games, then dudes have to take the hit on the chin. 'The burnt hand teaches best' and all that.

"I play for fun"
Some people play lawn bowels for fun. Some people go shopping for fun. Getting offended that others haven't conformed to your version of fun is pretty much setting yourself up for a fall. Again, if you're all casual and lose about your gaming time, yet someone bumps your inner man over by not doing it your way, just how casual and lose are you anyway?

+++

People have a set of rights and wrongs from their perceptions of life - their code. When someone else doesn't coincide with that code, boy oh boy, does frustration result.

When I play Space Marine, I now mess around with a few fun builds as we have quite a few newbies playing. But when the big boys come out with their super-builds and they're all mic'ed up and on one team, I simply turn my powa! level up to 11, take my best builds and up my game. Or leave if I am not up for that level of intensity.

Once you learn Bob plays hard, make the choice - play hard too, or ask him to play loose or don't play him. Getting angry doesn't help you one bit :)

Vinsklortho
03-07-2012, 04:28 PM
In a world of yo-yoiing, pop n' drops, and Snipe Feat Go people are complaining about rubber banding? An infantry unit effectively loses one guy for a round in order to get a buff spell on the unit. This is barely different from just buffing from an arc node. Whats next? Complaints about warcasters charging their own guys in the back to reach further with their feat?

GentleBen
03-07-2012, 04:28 PM
Except Infernals make rulings, they aren't the game design team. They get to ask what was the intent of the rule, but then are often stuck interpreting the answer in manifested context which weren't planned by the designers. Ask to anyone who contributed to the field test if rubberbanding was an integral part of the rule set redesign, and they'll answer no (I would, and so would all my friends who playtested : I only ever saw rubberbanding appear about 9-12 months ago on Vassal). So it's either something, like Elemental damage, who got intentionally inserted at the end of the playtesting, or it's an unintended error.

Either way, you are wrong about one thing : PP do make mistakes, and sometimes they don't fix them because that would cause to redesign larger parts of the gameplay. Case in point : Shield Wall. Infernals know it's a problem, but won't FAQ it. Case in point : the PoM Battle-Engine caster resurrection shenenigan : doesn't work as intended isn't FAQed. This last one they couldn't even agree on it, and had to double-back on the ruling (at first they said it would be FAQed, then dropped it). Just because Warmahorde is a tight rule set who gets fieldtested extensively doesn't mean it is perfect.


This is because Privateer Press makes a tremendous effort to create rules that are balanced. They aren't perfect at it but they try, and continue to be some of the best in the business in that regard.

It looks we actually agree on that.

My point isn't that Privateer is perfect. I'd never try and make that case. Its just that even if you don't like one of their rules you still have to follow them. As written. There is nothing in their literature about not using a rule if you think it sounds cheesy or contrary to some imagined "spirit of the game". If its confusing you ask an infernal. What they say goes until there is an official errata. What's bending me out of shape is all the people saying "hey that rule sounds cheesy you shouldn't play against anyone who uses it." You don't get that option in Warmachine. I guess your community could come together and decide what they want to do. But then what happens when a new guy wanders in or you go to a tourney in another town? Best to just learn to deal with it.

wittdooley
03-07-2012, 06:03 PM
My only problem with it is that, for me, it doesn't pass the "common sense" test. Sure, that probably includes some "spirit of the rule" type stuff, but cest la vie.

I chose not to play WM/H In an ultra Competetive setting against people I don't know because there are simply too many combos I don't know, and I don't play often enough to know them. Contrarily, I know mostly what to expect from 40k which is why I'll play it competitively.

Do I want to win? Sure. But playing these games is fun for me, so I chose not to put myself in a situation to be completely blindsided by a combo I don't know.