Stuart lists 2 orders that are in “error”, although 1 is obviously a program error (seige with a navy) but we’ll allow the rules to bear the brunt of criticism.
Otherwise, the rules are fine. If one chooses to interpret words like “generally” to mean “exact” then that person can only look in the mirror when the problems arise, or choose to sue the education department that graduated them, not cry unfair at the rules themselves. It’s that simple. Get over it.
Originally posted by nanook
In any case, the point is that some things in the rulebook, such as the description quoted in my above post, are simply incorrect.
No, they’re not incorrect. The description on “threatening a population centre” details various “intrinsic” aspects of a pops defense that one must “deal with” before they can “attempt” to threaten a pop. After reading the 498 order, it’s quite simply obvious that one cannot threaten a pop if there’s an enemy army there, it’s quite obviously common sense in fact. Thus, one will attempt to Attack Enemy with one army and threaten with another, no? Or, the order fails, for reasons CLEARLY outlined in the rules, and the player simply has to accept that fact that it ain’t a video game with cheat codes for “god mode” and sometimes all doesn’t go one’s way.
If one chooses to interpret words like “generally” to mean “exact” then that person can only look in the mirror when the problems arise, or choose to sue the education department that graduated them
Or, the order fails, for reasons CLEARLY outlined in the rules, and the player simply has to accept that fact that it ain’t a video game with cheat codes for “god mode” and sometimes all doesn’t go one’s way.
That tone isn’t necessary in response to my posts.
First, I wasn’t being a jerk. We have enough of that already.
Second, I posted relevant oversights in the rules:
Third, I didn’t personalize any of this, and you don’t need to either. If I’ve ever ordered Threat in the presence of enemy armies, it must have been more years ago than I can remember. I just gave it as an example of something woefully misleading.
not cry unfair at the rules themselves. It’s that simple. Get over it.
You know, I was just talking about the rulebook, which can be improved. Leave the personal attacks out of it.
Nanook
Nanook,
I apologize for my indelicate choices in phrasing my points. No personal attacks were intended. I admit, I have felt a certain degree of frustration in regards to this and other similar threads in regards to the rules on the mepbmlist@yahoogroups at different times.
I certainly understand and appreciate many peoples concerns over the percieved unclear MEPBM rules. Clint has asked for players input towards a new and improved rule book project. They hope to clear up many of these difficulties in understanding. I have submitted multiple pages to the company in this regard.
But I guarantee you that my posts above in this thread will certainly speak for a great many of the experienced vets in the game, including many who had replied to mepbmlist threads. I have myself started on the “ReWrite the Damn Things!” argument until I looked more closely into the scope of the problem when Clint requested player submissions for their new edition project.
I believe the rules, may on occasion, sacrifice crystal clarity for the sake of brevity. But, all the information is there. Excepting the 2 errors beaten to death already (they might even get fixed one day…), the rules do not lie. All other concerns I have seen, including all of these here, source their true causes in player error and misinterpretation - but it isn’t the books fault any more than my horrible slice is my driver’s fault.
Clint sent off a package to all interested parties. It included the information and examples of the types of things they were looking for in their new edition. I suggest you ask then about this information and take a good look at it. I quite quickly determined that they would at a MINIMUM triple the length of the book itself.
Would that make things more “clear”? No, it would make it worse, turning off new players even more so then their first 2 games worth of frustration with the rules as they exist. A 300 page rule book is not the way to go.
What’s the solution? “learned in the course of play” is the standard company answer. How else are you to accomodate the myriad of possible situations that may or may not come about, and make them all “clear” in the rule book? Not possible, simply not.
You have obviously had a problem recently with a population centre combat. Have you been in communication with the company in regards to the exact situation in your game? Please do so and have them either confirm the rule book is wrong, or shed light on what happened in your situation. As I’ve stated, it’s worked properly for me.
Regards,
Brad
Okay, I think that I wish I’d never asked, I was just curious and interested in the opinions of others. I really can’t see why such a question has caused such angst.
I’ll go on record as saying I never wanted to criticise the game which I think is absolutely fabulous in itself. Sure it has some problems or imperfections but overall it’s simply the best.
Not sure I’d say the same about the atmosphere on the forum though!
Simon.
Hey don’t be sorry Simon…if nothing else we are all reminded that the rules can sometimes be vague and/or contradictory. While this thread did get a little caustic, I honestly don’t think that anyone was trying to personally slight anyone else. Just another limitation of communicating with people you’ve never met via text.
To you and everyone else out there, please don’t hesitate to post your questions, thoughts, theories, etc. about the game. In the end I think we all benefit from discussing some of the “gotchas” and inconsistencies in the rules. As long as the conversation remains civil then I think it’s a great way to share knowledge about the game.
Not sure I’d say the same about the atmosphere on the forum though!
It’s ok, Simon – no grudge here, and it was still a helpful thread: Brad’s right that the orders section of the rulebook is the most reliable part, and I’d never thought of it that way. Besides, I wasn’t criticizing the game, which I love.
Brad, thanks for the thoughful reponse. Sorry I took offense, and I’m with you that we don’t need an enormous rulebook that explains every detail.
But the book could be more clear. If we do lose many newcomers for what they perceive as unfair rulings, we’d all benefit from a rulebook improvement. I wrote an economics section for the update, which I think answers the most common questions in half a page. If four more pages in the book reduces the questions for Clint and prevents newcomer frustration, that seems worthwhile.
Will the update be overdone, and are we better off leaving it alone? Maybe. You remember all the posts on that debate.
About the combat algorithim, we’ve talked about it – you came up with the Larry Theory of PC combat.
The rulebook states that PC combat is resolved before troop losses are counted, but I discovered that if you attack a pc with sufficient strength – in this case, with a combat arty – but so little Constitution that the army is eliminated (which was fine with me – I just wanted to destroy the pc and move my commander home), the pc miraculously survives.
This is expressly contradicted in the details of pc combat, which computes the impact on the pc before the troop losses.
Incidently, the commander was fine – it was not treated as unsuccessful pc assault – but he brought home no glory.
Your Larry Theory says that there must be one surviving footsoldier – say, Larry – to dance on the burning ruins. No Larry, no combat victory.
Dan
Would that make things more “clear”? No, it would make it worse, turning off new players even more so then their first 2 games worth of frustration with the rules as they exist. A 300 page rule book is not the way to go.
That’s what we’ve created Bofa for - 44 pages long and much more simple. We also try to get experienced players to help out in any normal game.
What’s the solution? “learned in the course of play” is the standard company answer. How else are you to accomodate the myriad of possible situations that may or may not come about, and make them all “clear” in the rule book? Not possible, simply not.
As far as I was aware we do try to help out here. Just ask and often you’ll get a useful answer. We can’t always do it, either the question is 4 pages long (or the answer would be) or there are a number of “solutions”.
So with the new rule book I am hoping that it will cover in depth examples, advice and tactical advice. Most of this is the sort of thing players ask for. It will also have experienced questions answered in some depth. Clearly this will be too much for some people - that’s why we’re wondering about splitting the new rulebook into a few sections. Help very welcome with this project though.
Clint
Simon; never feel like you can’t ask a question. I don’t know what Arthedain’s problem is, he seemed to be the only one who really flamed at you in particular. Perhaps there’s history there I don’t know about. I think though some of the other posts in this thread just show how strongly many people feel about the game. Are the rules unclear on some points? Certainly and they should be. In nearly all the orders discussed in your thread my opinion is that you shouldn’t have perfect ability to predict anything, certainly doesn’t happen in real life. That is why I answered you in the manner I did.
So keep on asking when you feel the need to, disregard those who respond like a jerk and glean what usable information you can from those who do post thoughtful and considered views.
I’ve played several games, but still learn little bits in each and every new one. For example until my last game I thought characters on ships were safe from assassination. Not so, if they are in coastal waters they can be killed by an assassin. Asking questions when you are in doubt is good, as there are probably others wondering the same thing as you and the discussions hopefully make all of us just a wee bit better at the game.
Best of luck
Brad
Larry! RRIIIIIIgghhhhhht! Forgot him.
Yes, Clint and Co are excellent at responding to multiple newbie questions. I’ve played with an extremely quick to email newbie who inundated poor MEGames with multiple queries during the first 5 turns of his first game. 1) Clint at al were exceptionally patient and fair in their responses to him at all times, even though I’m sure they were temtped to tell him to “read the f’in rules already!!!”. 2) Clint, y’er welcome, he mostly asks ME these things now…! 
Just thinking that a “Newbie Package” of relatively short essays that suplement the rules and START with a focus on teamwork might be the way to go, with further in depth resources available on the web if necessary.
Cheers,
the Other Brad
Brad (not the other Brad), Simon asked a question and I answered it. He then required the rationale, which suggests an ulterior motive. As Clint has pointed out, persons requring authority and credentials should contact Harley.
Originally posted by Player
[b]As for the seige order, well, that’s obviously an error in the program, no? How is a navy, without anchoring ships, expected to cut off all the roads leading to the population centre that happens to be on coastal flatlands or have docks? Silly that, but those poor much-maligned rules take the heat… [/b]
Well you’re confusing program error with lack of internal consistency in the game design here. It’s less stupid than having resources fly across the map via magical caravans.
You could justify it with historical precident about naval blockades and coastal towns dependent upon ship borne imports - Ancient Carthage etc. But more interesting perhaps, is to think about where the strange rule comes from: It’s one of a number of bad fixes for a botched system, that of navies. If you try running Corsairs, it soon becomes very frustrating due to the stupid number of extra pickup ships orders which have to be given to run a successful naval campaign. It’s this aspect, which unfairly peanalises navies vis a vis armies, which must have been apparent to the original designers/playtesters. But instead of just making the pickup ships order automatic (or rather warships picked up by default when an army moves to sea) they botched it by bringing in all the daft stuff about orders where then navy “does not anchor ships, mut must be able to anchor ships”.
And don’t mention armies on the shore being able to defend their navies at sea against other navies. Makes me puke.
Taking the point of the Reaction 2 encounters again. FLEE will get a char away from say the Demon of Aglarond. Consequently I have had this same encounter withourt issuing the FLEE order assuming the char would. The char was subsequently attacked presumably for hanging around too long.
To be safe follow common sense.
With the 498 order. The no. of troops present can be calculated as a percentage of those needed thus enhancing the chances of taking the pop centre. Added toi the command rank minus pop.centre loyalty and value of forts gives the answer. Positive usually means almost near perfect levels of success whereas negative usually mean failure. Gothmog indeed does not need the rulebook.
I’ve had the same thing happen to me, not with the Demon but a dragon that I elected no response for assuming that I would flee, instead that dragon chomped my character leaving him for dead. Choosing no response is not exactly the same as choosing to flee. You may be right hanging around instead of fleeing immediately can sometimes have bad consequences.
Originally posted by LGTilley
But instead of just making the pickup ships order automatic (or rather warships picked up by default when an army moves to sea) they botched it by bringing in all the daft stuff about orders where then navy “does not anchor ships, mut must be able to anchor ships”.
Well what if you don’t Want to send the guys away with all the ships? What if you want 2 navies, one mostly transports and the other all the warships? All the various permutations of possible choice, depending upon your strategy/plans/desires cannot be taken into account. At least 798 is after 765…just imagine…
Correct my simple logic, but doesn’t “automation” “automatically” remove individual choice, however idiosyncratically it may manifest itself?
While I haven’t pushed the naval game too much myself (5500 dead in the water at Dol Amroth - oh well, time to recruit cav…) the “does not anchor ships but must be able to anchor ships” makes perfect sense to me, at least in the case of the Threaten pop order. The Commander is Threatening the people, in effect saying “Don’t make me come over there…” Well, if he CAN’T come over there, there is no basis to threaten. The failed order is the bluff called, the commander says “Stubborn damn Dunmen” and sails off to try somewhere else.