Five highly questionable rules choices in most miniature wargames.

Overview

This is a concise, structured conversion of the Rule of Carnage episode “Five highly questionable rules choices in most miniature wargames” (hosts Mike Hutchinson & Glenn Ford). The episode is a designers’ rant/discussion about common, often-unquestioned rules that appear across tabletop miniature wargames. The hosts pick examples, explain why those rules are limiting or arbitrary, and suggest alternative ways designers can handle the same problems.

Questionable ubiquitous rules (examples, problems, alternatives)

“You cannot re-roll a re-roll; the second result stands (even if worse)”

• Problem
  • Removes meaningful choice and punishes risk-taking.
  • Reduces interesting decision space by forcing a single deterministic outcome after taking a risk.
• Alternatives
  • Allow the player to keep either the original roll or the reroll.
  • Make rerolls cost resources (points, tokens, command dice).
  • Offer graded options (spend more resources to pick a face).
  • State an explicit hard reroll limit (rather than a blanket “no re-rerolls” rule).

Always-contiguous success band on dice (successes are consecutive numbers)

• Problem
  • Arbitrary and overly conventional; non-contiguous success sets are usually puzzling and unnecessary.
• Alternative
  • Use non-standard mappings only with a clear design justification (narrative or mechanical). Otherwise prefer contiguous success ranges for clarity.

Automatic success/failure faces (ones always fail, sixes always succeed)

• Problem
  • Assumes low-powered units should always have some tiny chance to turn the tide, which can undermine strategic planning and make outcomes feel unfair.
• Possible uses
  • Use deliberately as a “pressure valve” to enable rare narrative moments (e.g., a small fighter occasionally bypassing huge shields).
  • Don’t include guaranteed faces by default — decide whether your game actually wants guaranteed low-chance upsets.

Measurement / placement oddities (measure from unusual points, front vs back of base, templates vs pick-up)

• Problem
  • Inconsistent conventions across games cause confusion and odd tactical outcomes (for example, moving “6” but effectively gaining extra overlap depending on which point of the base is used for measurement).
• Alternatives
  • Choose a coherent, tactile system and stick with it.
  • Use templates or different handling only when justified (e.g., Air/vehicle systems like X-Wing or Gaslands).
  • Document measurement rules precisely and avoid surprising exceptions.

Charge advantage assumed (charger gets automatic bonus)

• Problem
  • Many rulesets grant the charger extra benefits by default. That hides an explicit design choice and can imbalance mechanics.
• Alternatives
  • Reconsider whether charging should be the only source of advantage.
  • Provide clear counterbalances or defensive bonuses for the target rather than an automatic attacker bonus.

Fleeing off the table = permanent removal

• Problem
  • Unrealistic and narratively weak: historical and fictional units can flee, regroup, and return. It’s arbitrary to delete a unit for a single inch of off-table movement.
• Alternatives
  • Allow rally checks for off-table units.
  • Track fleeing units as temporary reinforcements.
  • Model uncertainty without instant removal (e.g., delayed return mechanics).

Leaders are arbitrary buffs (one model chosen becomes “leader” and gets bonuses)

• Problem
  • Often cosmetic or arbitrary, lacking narrative justification when everyone could get the same treatment.
• Alternatives
  • Make leader selection meaningful with narrative or mechanical reasons.
  • Design leaders to offer unique abilities or trade-offs rather than blanket bonuses.
  • Consider avoiding blanket leader buffs entirely.

Immediately remove models on reaching zero wounds (no remains / wrecks)

• Problem
  • Removes tactical and narrative opportunities from wrecks, fallen giants, collapsed structures, etc.
• Alternatives
  • Keep wrecks/tokens that affect the battlefield (e.g., Gaslands-style wrecks).
  • Use corpses, toppled models, or debris as persistent table-state that influences movement, line of fire, or objectives.

Line of Sight and terrain inconsistencies (true LOS ignored for hills/valleys; buildings special-cased)

• Problem
  • Some systems apply true LOS for buildings but not for small hills or ditches, creating inconsistent treatment of cover and height.
• Alternatives
  • Be consistent about terrain occlusion or explicitly document the intended simplification.
  • If you use simplified LOS for playability, acknowledge the simplification and apply it consistently.

Design tips and principles (practical takeaways)

• Question assumed conventions — don’t copy rules just because “that’s how it’s always done.”
• Replace vague numerics or words like “any number” with a specific value or explicit mechanism.
• Consider the design-space consequences of a rule: what choices does it remove or create?
• Try the counterfactual: imagine the opposite rule. If it’s interesting, consider adopting it; if it changes nothing, the rule might be pointless.
• Give players meaningful choices rather than arbitrary limits.
• Use exceptions (ones/sixes, reroll limits, etc.) deliberately and for clear narrative or balancing reasons, not as default safety nets.
• Preserve meaningful table-state (wrecks, corpses, toppled giants) when it adds tactical or narrative depth.

Examples, games, designers, and sources mentioned

• Hosts / show
  • Rule of Carnage podcast — Mike Hutchinson and Glenn Ford
• Games and systems referenced
  • Gaslands, X-Wing (Star Wars), Arkham Horror, Billion Suns, Warhammer, Warhammer 40k
  • Titan/Titans and large-figure/toy examples (giants, Titanic/Titan-related play)
  • Sludge War (by Sean Sutter) as an example
• People / studios mentioned
  • Jervis Johnson (Games Workshop)
  • Sean Sutter (Sludge War)
• General style/source referenced
  • Games Workshop house style for reroll rules

Conclusion

The episode’s core message is to treat common wargame rules as explicit design choices: understand the trade-offs, avoid inherited defaults, and only keep special-case mechanics when they serve a clear narrative or mechanical purpose.