Slitherine

All three from 2008, pre FAQ, and authors personal opinion in the main. The problem with author opinion from 2008 is at that time they had in their heads what they were trying to get the rules to do, rather than what they acually say. Kind of like now, in fact with v2.

Authors are IMHO actually quite bad people to say what their rules mean. They can remember all the alternatives that we discounted, and what they were trying to say. And when it's pointed out that the rules don't say what they think, they have a tendency to invent defences

Those of us who played WRG rules remember the infamous "letter from Phil" syndrome, where an author when asked whether A or B would happen on the table would tend to respond that it was actually Z. Normally, Z being what Phil thought would actually happen on a battlefield so he just assumed that was what his rules said!

Fortunately, the wrinkles in FOG are rare. I think I've come up against the 'who charges first and who responds?' wrinkle once in a hundred plus game, and my opponent and I worked it out reasonably. Less than 1% wrinkle is fine by me. Especially since writing them out of the rules maight take lots of words.

grahambriggs wrote: Authors are IMHO actually quite bad people to say what their rules mean.

True. Its like like asking Ruddock or Powell really

grahambriggs wrote: Fortunately, the wrinkles in FOG are rare. I think I've come up against the 'who charges first and who responds?' wrinkle once in a hundred plus game, and my opponent and I worked it out reasonably. Less than 1% wrinkle is fine by me. Especially since writing them out of the rules maight take lots of words.

I think this is true. Most of the points of contention have the players saying I could see it either way but I think ___.

It's really only when either interpretation yields radical impacts on the game that players get worked up. Often I have found what players "want" the rules to say are driven by the board even subconsciously. Also players who perceive themselves to be better and / or winning often think their view is correct.

hazelbark wrote: Also players who perceive themselves to be better and / or winning often think their view is correct.

See Mr Gaukroger above for an example

Often I have found what players "want" the rules to say are driven by the board even subconsciously.

Very true. And the authors do not mind umpire or player agreement in unusual situations (and, we can come up with a lot of them). I just want the basic logic nailed down.

philqw78 wrote:

hazelbark wrote: Also players who perceive themselves to be better and / or winning often think their view is correct.

See Mr Gaukroger above for an example

From a man who at Britcon last year didn't know how contracts and move combine

nikgaukroger wrote:

philqw78 wrote:

hazelbark wrote: Also players who perceive themselves to be better and / or winning often think their view is correct.

See Mr Gaukroger above for an example

From a man who at Britcon last year didn't know how contracts and move combine

Better than Ruddock. When we played he got the number of LH shooting dice worng. And he uses those in every game!

grahambriggs wrote:Better than Ruddock. When we played he got the number of LH shooting dice worng. And he uses those in every game!

He equips them all with AK-47. No wonder each base throws five dice hitting on 2s.

nikgaukroger wrote:From a man who at Britcon last year didn't know how contracts and move combine

At least I know where the terrain goes

philqw78 wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:From a man who at Britcon last year didn't know how contracts and move combine

At least I know where the terrain goes

In the corner along with your army from what I recall of our last meeting, or maybe on the edge as a complete cock up a la Lisbon

philqw78 wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:From a man who at Britcon last year didn't know how contracts and move combine

At least I know where the terrain goes

But not necessarily the implications of his choices....