"Guess and backtrack" is a totally valid form of deduction for pen-and-paper puzzles, it's just not very satisfying. But often (always?) there is a satisfying deduction technique that could have replaced the guess-and-check, it may just be fairly obtuse.
Or do you just mean where the clues for the raster don't result in a unique solution?
* 5, 0, 1 1 1, 2 2, 3 1 and 3 1 are immediately solved
* 4 lets you set 3 squares immediately
* 3, 2 1 and 1 2 let you set 1 square immediately
For example, a valid "advanced" rule is this: consider a line, then consider all permutations of ways to complete it given the current state of the line. If a square is filled in/crossed out in all these permutations, then it you may fill it in/cross it out.
This is an O(n!) algorithm! In practice you only have <5 permutations.
But in general, Nonogram solving, like most pen-and-paper puzzles, is NP-Complete for large enough puzzles, so even such a high-powered rule isn't guaranteed to completely solve a (large) puzzle.