When a rulebook is wrong

It seems to me that when you discover that the gaming code does not work as outlined in a rulebook, the fair thing to do is alert the gaming community to this, not take advantage of it. That way seems to me sneaky and dishonorable, and low.

No names. Just saying.


I don’t think I’ve ever found an error in the rulebook. Am I just missing something. More recently, there do seem to be some players saying they think the rule book has errors. Is it possible that some elements of the game now work differently since the move to PCs? (Elements of the game being different since the move to PCs is a bit of a favourite topic of mine.)

As for Jeremy’s point; I’m tempted to think any advantage is a good advantage. Maybe I was born to be an Orc.

Clearly Jeremy you will NEVER work for Bill Belichik.

Then why dont you do just that and alert us?

Jeremy, I’d be very interested to know what in the rulebook you think might be wrong. Do you feel able to post it?

I have heard recently that some people think it’s possible to do two improvements in a turn when the rulebook says only one can be done each turn. I’ve just tested improving a pop centre twice in the same turn and it did not work. One emissary got the message that the pop centre had already been improved that turn.

Jeremy mentions “when gaming code does not work as outlined in a rulebook”, this is different than if he feels a rule is wrong. I feel some rules are wrong, like 870, yet that is considered an unintended consequence. So I accept it and play on.

But, the fact remains, in every game I have participated, there are things I have witnessed that are not consistent with the code and for that matter. the rules.

Ex) if army/navy buys 2 turns of food and player discovers the coding is not subtracting food for that army/navy, how impactful is such a minor error?

I am one player among hundreds and I know what I have experienced and seen. Should I presume these coding miscues only happen in games I am involved or are these coding miscues not being reported, yet used for advantage by opponents?

jus’ sayin, these things are more common than not.


The rule in question has to do with the 840 Stand and Defend. In the original printed rulebooks, not in the section on the 840 but in the section on army/navy movement, it says clearly and expclitly that evasive movement can’t get past an enemy army doing Stand and Defend, except by overrun. Since someone just did this in a game, I assume that either at some point the code was changed, or more likely it was broken from the start.

That comment was removed from the current Rulebook-Guide, but nothing was put in its place to say that the printed rulebook contained an error or that the code had been changed.

The only way to know that the code didn’t work as in the printed rulebook was to try it, find out it was broken or changed, and then keep it to yourself. Clearly from the responses to my post, some players think that’s okay. For me, it’s one thing if you find out how the MEPBM world works that no one else knows but that isn’t mentioned oposoitely in the rulebook, but this is something everyone SHOULD be told because it was in the rules.


Dan, I’ve never heard of armies not having to use up their food. Firstly, I’d be VERY VERY interested to see that, if it’s a game that is over, and you have your turns (the turn before and the turn of the move), I’d love to see them – my email is jeremyrichman22@gmail.com

Secondly, if you really feel there is a bug, I always bring it to Clint’s attention and he’s always been appreciative. Sometimes he points out that I’m wrong and just didn’t understand things; and sometimes it really is a bug.


Bugs/coding errors are different to rulebook errors. If I come across what might be a bug I always tell Clint about. As Jeremy says, sometimes he points out that it’s me but if it is a bug Clint always says he’ll add it to the list for correction.

I rarely use stand and defend and I’ve not come across any issues with it. I was being a bit tongue in cheek with my comment that any advantage is a good advantage. The same as for bugs, I would always tell Clint if I thought I had found an error in the rulebook.

Yes, I told Clint but since it was the original rulebook that didn’t match up with the actuality, he didn’t feel any adjustments were necessary. Personally I think that everything in older rulebooks should be able to be considered canon unless specifically corrected in a later rulebook, which this wasn’t. Oh well…