Missing rules?

[Dewbakuk]

No one has said you can't read English or that you're stupid, and I completely agree that the section in question should be clearer. I'm sure Craig will stop by and give his 2p when he recovers from SALUTE.

[oabee]

you people sure love jumping to conclusions about my inability to understand simple concepts like language and basic math.

No, we're not jumping to conclusions about your mental abilities, we're just trying to answer your questions. Because, yes, you're absolutely right, the rules are obscure in places. If I personally have given offense to you, I too apologize.    What follows are just my personal observations about what I know and what I believe about the design and philosophy of IHMN, and of gaming in general.

See, this is why you should have other people read your rules before you print them.

I'm very sure the rules were play tested, as they are based on a popular set of skirmish rules set in the Warhammer 40K universe called In the Emperor's Name, which has been around since 2011. You can pick them up for free. I'm also sure that Osprey Publishing has high standards in this regard.

"It's KISS, we don't have to explain anything".

Well, let me try to explain where I'm coming from, then. Are the rules vague in spots? Absolutely. It may just be Craig's style, or his intent, or both! It may be the fact that Osprey imposed very strict limits on the amount of content to be contained in the book. Yes, the scenarios are just sketches, bare bones, absolutely devoid of detail. For the record, the Mad Jack scenario specifies that a building be placed in the middle of the board, but does not specify where Jack should be placed or how he is to be moved! And, yes, I too would like to have things spelled out at least a little more. Given the scarcity of the rules, my personal solution to this would be to set up my own rules governing Jack if I were gamemastering, or work them out with my fellow gamers before we start if I were playing. And I'm sure that's how Craig has intended things to be!

I recently got into All Quiet on the Martian Front, a fun and simple rules system. And for $40 (nearly three times the cost of IHMN) you get a very slick and plush-looking set of rules that are--literally!--two-thirds photos and fluff, and contain terrain rules that are--almost!--as vague as IHMN. I simply believe that IHMN, with all its joys   and flaws  , was created with a different philosophy: you are urged--and at times forced!-- to make of it what you want, and you don't have to interrupt play every 15 minutes to check some obscure rules question, as you are forced to do in many many rules sets I can think of.

That's also where this special forum comes in, where people can look for help, share ideas, or just vent! And where you can interact with the author, whom I too hope chimes in on this interesting discussion sometime soon.

[Genghis]

Welcome to IHMN BugPope; don't worry, I'm totally with you in failing to understand terrain-related Movement penalties from the rulebook.  (I haven't played with any area terrain yet, so this hasn't been a problem for me thus far, but this thread has helpfully resolved the issue.)

Also, are there any plans to implement the Edison teleporter thing in any of the army lists? It seems like such a fun gadget, but nobody can use it.

Feel free to add it a Company of your own making, or come up with a fluffy reason to make it an option for any of the 'cannon' Companies.

And I never said that my problem with Bad Jack is that I don't have any houses that fit the jungle theme. Because I do have those, but you can't lift the roofs and keep track on exactly where the figures are standing inside them (so we just remove the figures from the table when they move inside, and then put them back on the table when they leave), which means I can't check if they're standing next to windows or not. So I'll have to make my own rules for it.
Hm... okay, figures can be shot at as if they were in cover, but only if they shot out of the windows during this or the previous turn? Sounds like that would work.

If you can't physically put Bad Jack in the hut, how about either assume he is always visible through the window, or whenever someone has a line of sight onto the window, roll a die to determine if he is visible.  Alternatively, maybe he's chillin' in a jungle clearing, possibly even moving randomly around, but staying within the clearing?  As an added rule I use, if you get within 6" of him, he'll charge you & start scrapping.

[Dewbakuk]

Don't US Marines have the teleporter?

[Craig]

Good evening chaps 

Having just done a 12 hour working day I shall have a look at what's been going on and give my infallible opinion

Dear Bugpope, I will say first that we welcome all feedback, as my fellows here will attest I am sure, and I am sorry you seem to be struggling with our little rule book. I shall try to answer your many questions as fully as I can.

First, some background. Osprey Publishing, bless their hearts, did apply some restrictions to the first book, namely a 25,000 word and 64-page limit. As you can imagine trying to pack in everything we wanted people to have into that was a challenge and our writing did become quite spare at certain points. At that point, we had no idea we would have two more books, so it all had to fit in one.

OK, that said, I doubt that we would alter section 4.1.1 Difficult Terrain. Although we have heard of a handful of people who have struggled with it, the majority seem to have had no problems. Upon reflection, what it could do with is a clear example for Movement.

Shall we look at the section?
Difficult Terrain imposes restrictions on Movement depending on the figure or vehicle type attempting to traverse it. It also restricts visibility and may provide physical cover against Shooting.
In this game, Difficult Terrain is rated as Type 1, 2 or 3 – the number corresponds to the level of penalty associated with it.

It is also referenced in the general rules on movement (3.2.1):
A figure may be moved in any direction. Its movement may be slowed by the terrain and/or visibility (4.1).

When we wrote this we thought it simple and elegant. It states what is affected by Difficult Terrain and then that there are penalties. Perhaps we were wrong.

Onto your second point, Objectives.

Our spare writing style may be at fault again here, but the only standard scenario that uses objectives is 9.1.1 in which it states: A single figure cannot carry more than one objective. Which I would think indicate, especially given the example objectives mentioned, that a single figure can carry a single objective.

Neither of the two recommended scenario options allows for a company to win by seizing a single objective. I also wonder at your opponent's ability to get to the centre of the table and return in two turns. You seem to indicate it was one of his native bearers who accomplished this remarkable feat. Even allowing for a native bearer's +2 speed his maximum movement would be 11" running flat out. Even if he started 6" in, he would not reach the centre line and claim the objective on turn one if you were playing on the recommended 3' square table. And if he did he certainly would not get the objective off the table in the second turn.

We wrote the scenarios based on a number of assumptions including the standard table size. Given the word count restrictions we were working to we couldn't take into account lots of other options.

And onto your third point: VIPs.

On reflection, we could have added a couple of sentences here for the single scenario in which you have to escort a figure. However, we left it to player's good judgement. After all the scenarios "are some examples of what you could include in your games." and are not prescriptive.

Bad Jack. The scenario does not say, nor infer that this fiend begins in any building. In fact, it says that Bad Jack has escaped. It is up to you and your opponent to decide where Bad Jack starts out.

On the amount of 'unused' weapons, armour, equipment, weird science and talents, we included far more that was listed for the companies precisely so you could use it to supplement them if you wished, or to equip companies of your own design. Call it a tool box if you wish. As it happens the Edison Beam Translator does appear as an option in the USMC company

I do find this statement a bit confusing:
"I do get that, but there's a difference between keeping the rules light and having half-finished rules, or scenarios that require rules that don't exist. I really don't want to come off as whiny, and I don't really get why people seem to presume that I don't understand the whole KISS thing, but after playing a few games, my main impression of the game is less that it's a foundation to build on and more that it's a first draft that got printed before play testing or proof reading. And I really don't think that is too much to ask for. Especially if it makes the game near impossible to play without extensive houseruling."

You don't come off as whiny, just as a bit confused. It is a state I have seen many times before with players who are used to having rules for every single eventuality presented to them in voluminous tomes. It was our intention to treat our players as adults and give them a set of rules that were written in a spare style and that allowed them to change anything they pleased and take ownership of the games they played with them. We explained this in section 1.5 - The Power of Rules & The Gentleperson's Agreement.
It is true that any rules lawyer can drive a coach and horses through this book, and any regular tournament player may despair at the lack of direct instruction. However, these rules were written to encourage creativity and guide players to many hours of enjoyable games.
It took the best part of two years to write these rules, a process that included innumerable drafts and extensive playtesting by a range of people. We did submit the rules to proofreading by our publisher and number of errors did get through. In subsequent books, we engaged a number of enthusiastic reviewers including the indefatigable Dewbakuk.
Since then we have sold over 7,500 copies. Hundreds of players have come here, Facebook and other fora and related their enjoyment, described their games in detail, revelled in the freedom these rules have given them to create their own narratives. A few have asked for assistance with this rule or that and the community has rallied to them. That said we have not had anyone say the game is unplayable "without extensive houseruling".

As for the small matter of your English. It seems perfectly fine to me and if you had not mentioned it I would not have noticed. We have sold thousands of copies across Europe and the rest of the world and it seems to have been received and understood perfectly well.

I hope that my epic ramblings have helped clear the air. Please feel free to quiz me further and don't worry about upsetting me or the fine gentlemen here. We just wish to assist you to get the most out of the game.

[Denizen Kane]

Okay now I am a bit confused . I have been allowing my VIP's to actually have a life! They have all the stats as one of the Companies players do and they wll indeed fight in self defense. Am I wrong in this They follow the scenario but if attacked they will fight back.

[oabee]

Am I wrong in this

I don't think so. How scenarios are designed is up to you 

Which has been my point all along....

[Craig]

Okay now I am a bit confused . I have been allowing my VIP's to actually have a life! They have all the stats as one of the Companies players do and they wll indeed fight in self defense. Am I wrong in this They follow the scenario but if attacked they will fight back.

This is IHMN Kane. As long your opponent and you want a VIP who can take names and kick-ass then let it be so! 

[Dewbakuk]

I don't think so. How scenarios are designed is up to you 

Which has been my point all along....

This!

[Genghis]

Okay now I am a bit confused . I have been allowing my VIP's to actually have a life! They have all the stats as one of the Companies players do and they wll indeed fight in self defense. Am I wrong in this They follow the scenario but if attacked they will fight back.

I reckon letting them reciprocate in a bought of fisticuffs would only be sporting...

[Dewbakuk]

If they're being attacked I see no reason why they wouldn't retaliate, they just wouldn't ordinarily get any bonuses to the dice.

[Tehet]

If I can bring a lighter note to these proceedings...

We run IHMN at shows, currently using the system as id with modifications to make the games faster, 100 point companies and set scenarios etcetera...

With respects to VIPs, we have one scenario called assassination (I cannot remember off the top whether this is an official version or home grown) where the VIP travels over the board in a carriage and one company has to assassinate her (yes, it is good Queen Vic), the other has to prevent it.

The question was how to run it. We use the basic rules for attacking vehicles, with the base rule that if the vehicle is destroyed the VIP gets placed by its side. This was fine but then one person wanted his Yeti to jump on the carriage. So we modified the rule, allowing the Yeti to make a Pluck Roll (-2 due to the movement of the carriage) to climb on. This the Yeti did and attempt to strike Her Majesty (which he did not). We had advocated that QV had a swordstick under her robes and at a mere FV+1, PL+0, she ran through and killed him!

All the players thought that hilarious and that is the point. These rules are not really meant for tournament, but are adaptable and are made to be so.

[wulfgar22]

I love IHMN's simplicity. I find it much easier to change, adapt and add commonsense rules to a simple rules set that actively encourages you to make it your own than to a more comprehensive set where every eventuality has been covered.

[BugPope]

First, I want to apologize for the thread necromancy, but I haven't really touched IHMN in over half a year. Then I recently felt like maybe I should give it another chance (or like a third or fourth chance, at this point), so I checked out the forum again, and saw that Craig had replied to it. "Hey, maybe he's addressed my criticism in a way that clears things out, instead of just calling me an idiot repeatedly?" I though to myself, but nope, shouldn't have gotten my hopes up.

First, some background. Osprey Publishing, bless their hearts, did apply some restrictions to the first book, namely a 25,000 word and 64-page limit. As you can imagine trying to pack in everything we wanted people to have into that was a challenge and our writing did become quite spare at certain points. At that point, we had no idea we would have two more books, so it all had to fit in one.

First of all, you're talking as if the missing parts of the rules are giant paragraphs or chapters of their own. This isn't the case. Usually, it's just a few sentences here and there that are missing. If you really that limited, why use that space for background lore and other fluff?

Neither of the two recommended scenario options allows for a company to win by seizing a single objective. I also wonder at your opponent's ability to get to the centre of the table and return in two turns. You seem to indicate it was one of his native bearers who accomplished this remarkable feat. Even allowing for a native bearer's +2 speed his maximum movement would be 11" running flat out. Even if he started 6" in, he would not reach the centre line and claim the objective on turn one if you were playing on the recommended 3' square table. And if he did he certainly would not get the objective off the table in the second turn.

We played the Pigeon scenario, where there is only one objective, and you win if you take it. This scenario states that the pigeon moves a random amount of inches every turn. And since it never specifies when that movement takes place (I guess there simply wasn't place for the single extra sentence that would clarify that...), we guessed that it happens at the start of the game. This took the pigeon close to my friend's half of the table, where he easily claimed it.
But let me guess: that's all our fault, right?

On the amount of 'unused' weapons, armour, equipment, weird science and talents, we included far more that was listed for the companies precisely so you could use it to supplement them if you wished, or to equip companies of your own design. Call it a tool box if you wish. As it happens the Edison Beam Translator does appear as an option in the USMC company

I still don't get why you waste so many pages on army lists that include characters that are sometimes impossible to find models for, and then pretend that you simply didn't have space left for rules and gameplay examples.

You don't come off as whiny, just as a bit confused. It is a state I have seen many times before with players who are used to having rules for every single eventuality presented to them in voluminous tomes. It was our intention to treat our players as adults and give them a set of rules that were written in a spare style and that allowed them to change anything they pleased and take ownership of the games they played with them. We explained this in section 1.5 - The Power of Rules & The Gentleperson's Agreement.

This is just downright condescending ad hominem. I've never once said anything about how I want "voluminous tomes" of rules, or requested detailed, minute rules for every single thing. I love simple and fast games, that's why I was attracted to this game to begin with. Take the VIP for example. You say that a scenario involves a neutral character that can be moved by a player and also be involved in combat, and then you just decide that the players will have to figure out how this works on their own. This is not simplistic game design, it's giving up in the middle of a paragraph.

It is true that any rules lawyer can drive a coach and horses through this book, and any regular tournament player may despair at the lack of direct instruction. However, these rules were written to encourage creativity and guide players to many hours of enjoyable games.

Encouraging the players to be creative is not the same thing as requiring them to write the rules for you. And in a skirmish game, scenarios should not be handled as trivial afterthoughts, that don't deserve rules. That's like skipping the rules for, let's say, shooting, and telling the players to make it up on their own.
I also never said anything excepting tournament worthy balance (in fact, that's the complete opposite of the kinds of games I like), so I honestly have no idea why you are trying to put these words into my mouth. Why not try focusing on what I'm actually saying, instead?

It took the best part of two years to write these rules, a process that included innumerable drafts and extensive playtesting by a range of people. We did submit the rules to proofreading by our publisher and number of errors did get through

If you spent all time time writing the game and it's still this unfinished, that's probably not something you should brag about.

I really wanted to like this game, since there are parts I really like, and some of the fluff is pretty good, but no matter how many copies you sold, it doesn't change the fact that I find it unfinished, and everyone I played with has given up after a few tries. But when the author responds to critique and questions by implying that I just don't get simplistic games as a concept, and is simply not creative enough, that kinda kills any desire I had to give this another try. You've been way more condescending than you had to be (and your constant attempts at making up facts about me and blaming everything on those don't exactly show a lot of respect) and it's  a shame that you refuse to accept that your game isn't a flawless masterpiece. That's gonna hold you back.
 Now I'll go play Pulp Alley instead. That game's author hasn't said that any flaws in his game must be the result of me not being adult enough, which is nice.

[Craig]

Bugpope,

You have chosen to take offence at a number of my statements to the extent that you regard them as 'ad hominem' attacks. I can only assure you that this was not my intent when I wrote them.

It is obvious that neither you nor I are going to agree on the issues you have raised, and that continuing this debate is only likely to inflame matters further. Thus I shall not comment on it again.

Pulp Alley is an excellent game written by a friend of mine. I hope you enjoy it far more than you have IHMN.