lawrenceg wrote: IMO the authors' motivation for some of the terminology was to give the impression of novelty compared to previous games, and in some cases is spurious, e.g.
"Battlegroup" = "unit"
"Cohesion" = "morale"
"++" = "+2"
I see a sound rationale for most of the terminology.
A BG may represent multiple units working together, and players should not get hung up on units (nor on scale issues).
Cohesion and morale are substantively different concepts - morale is more related to quality. Which is why you take an automatic cohesion loss when charged in flank or rear by non-skirmishers - morale may remain high, but you fight less effectively. Shaken is a demoralization concept, disrupted and fragmented are disorganization concepts.
Broken, of course, is just broken.
+2 and +1 suggest a numerical scale in which there could be a +3, while ++ and fit as + are shorthand symbols for small advantage and large advantage.
There are some terms used simply to avoid using equivalent terms also used in earlier rules, but that seems OK and is wise if the tactical implications are different in order to perhaps reduce confusion.
===
My first exposure to the rules was when I purchased them, and I was immediately impressed with their clarity and comprehensiveness (and wished for a better index), particularly how sentences are usually written to admit only one natural interpretation. I think the trick is reading carefully but not reading anything into it that is not there (can be a challenge).
Cheers,
Mike