Slitherine

nickj wrote:I love the game, it is now "my" ancients game, there is just still room for improvement.

It's my game of choice too. In fact since it came out I don't think I've played another rules set in any form what-so-ever. The only wargame I've played in FoG. I dunno if that's a good thing or a bad thing.

Having said that, DBM used to be my rules set, and I loved it. I thought there were clunky bits, but it worked.

Then they tried to fix it 1.1

Then they tried to fix it 1.2

Then they tried to fix it 1.3

That was version 1.

Then they tried to fix it 2.0

Then they tried to fix it 2.1

You can see where I'm going here.

Eventually they fixed it alright. The rats jumped off the sinking ship (which probably should have happened when it was clear the author was going the same way as WRG (come-on 7 editions for a set of rules of a genre that doesn't change??? You've got to be kidding me (and that doesn't count sub-version)).

I'd be extremely disappointed if Field of Glory went that direction and tried to fix things that really didn't need fixing.

Ian

DaiSho wrote:

nickj wrote:I love the game, it is now "my" ancients game, there is just still room for improvement.

It's my game of choice too. In fact since it came out I don't think I've played another rules set in any form what-so-ever. The only wargame I've played in FoG. I dunno if that's a good thing or a bad thing.

Having said that, DBM used to be my rules set, and I loved it. I thought there were clunky bits, but it worked.

Ian

I should note there is a difference between corrections of error and improved layout and revisions. And yes, if the rulebook got clearer I'd buy one.

FWIW I don't think there is a huge problem doing a vs 2.0 of the QRS if people feel this is needed.

We have always responded to player input if it is anything like a consensus view. I worry that this discussion is getting too black and white; it is more important to pragmatic and accept that we all read things slightly differently. I am sure there are already 50 differents interps of this first para ...

So to try to unravel things a bit on the theory ..... based on my presentional experience I have the following (and happy to defer to experts and be corrected):
a) its a table, not a chart, or a spreadsheet.
b) you can apply grouping for several different meanings within a table, not just one; spacing is something different.
c) the two groupings you mention above are fundamentally different in that the former (1) is indented inside and within the left column, the latter (2) is a block across the entire centre section.

My presentation designers always said that a sub-grouping applied within a main column (C1) is used as a block or divert when you want the reading to start with the line item; a block grouping entirely across a column (C2) then applies to everything to the right or below (just at would in a 2 x 2 simple table). I didn't desing it, but the QRS has always seemed to follow these two rules to me in that open terrain is sub-group within the first column as an over-aching condition that says "look no further if...i.e. a block", the + is a grouping of entire items in the second column and simply says all lines hereafter are in the + category. So the QRS table logic is:

Line item -> Over-riding block condition for line item -> POA applied to each line -> detailed conditions for POA applying.

From a reading point of view it is certainly how my mind prefers it, but that is just a personal preference, not a matter of right or wrong.

Can I suggest that rather than argue over right and wrong, it might be more useful to post some examples of what different people prefer instead.

Just create a litte mini-excel version of how you would prefer the layout, JPEG it and post it here for everyone to take a look at. Probably only takes 15 minutes and everyone might go, ""yeah that is easier to use".

Si

PS And of course there is room for improvement .... you never perfect before launch because it is all your great feedback that allows us to perfect things .. and we can't get it without launching! We just tried to get as close as we could, and feel we got close, so few iterations are needed. SO keep the feedback coming.

Nickj wrote :
I am a new player. My professional specialty is graphical user interface design. The chart is wrong. ......It is an understandable but very rookie mistake. Saying that, "it is not a spreadsheet," is also a rookie mistake.

Hundreds of people have understood it and are happy with it. Two or three people think it's wrong. Draw your conclusions from that....

And BTW I am an accountant / ex banker and use spreadsheets daily. This is a table, not a spreadsheet and has always been clear to me.

nickj wrote:Saying that the QRS is not the rule is a cop out.

The QRS is only intended to be a reminder and is an abbreviated version of the main rules. As such the wording is bound to differ, and some people may interpret this as a difference in meaning - although in every case (except for the LSP HCh issue) this apparent difference depends merely on one possible interpretation. The apparent contradiction only exists if the QRS is read in an unintended way - it can also be read in a way that concords with the main rules. All we are saying is that if the QRS "seems" to disagree with the main rules, the main rules take precedence as they contain the full definitive wording.

The rules themselves have errors that QRS seems to correct.

If so, it is probably the QRS that is wrong. Can you give an example?

The only clear-cut error (in the QRS) that has been pointed out so far is the issue of LSp heavy chariots - which has been added to the errata sheet. The main rules are correct on this.

For example the section on re-rolls (which doesn't seem to be noted in the errata).

What error is that, Nick?

Isn't a chart and a spreadsheet basiclly the same thing?
I don't knoeI am a lowly Lieutenant so I could be wrong. But is some one fixing the chart? I still really don't think it is a big deal. I saw a post about a 2.0 being done. If I had more time and was not so lazy I would do it myself and call it a day since it seems people think I am insulting the rules.

And about my Pregnant Bride, she has a 4 year degree in management from SIU and has been out of banking being a full time Mom. The only thing I will give you about question here ablity is she is still married to me.

But that may be the German in her.
Irondog

irondog068 wrote:Isn't a chart and a spreadsheet basiclly the same thing?
Irondog

Maps are charts.

People interpret things differently.

It would be nice to get an interpretation everyone could understand immediately. Then you Americans would have a fine constitution, our MP's would only have one house and the aussies would still be in jail (and we might get a constitution)

The QRS is supposed to avert having to keep looking through the rules. It achieves most of its aim, perhaps some need to look at it other than they would normally. But thankfully we have a forum like this we we can slag off each others interpretations and maybe, eventually, agree on the same one.

philqw78 wrote: and maybe, eventually, agree on the same one.

Agreement now thats just not wargaming is it

irondog068 wrote:Isn't a chart and a spreadsheet basiclly the same thing?
I don't knoeI am a lowly Lieutenant so I could be wrong. But is some one fixing the chart? I still really don't think it is a big deal. I saw a post about a 2.0 being done. If I had more time and was not so lazy I would do it myself and call it a day since it seems people think I am insulting the rules.

And about my Pregnant Bride, she has a 4 year degree in management from SIU and has been out of banking being a full time Mom. The only thing I will give you about question here ablity is she is still married to me.

But that may be the German in her.
Irondog

Despite the comment below you are correct in this context. A chart is a spreadsheet. A spreadsheet is not nor was it always limited to computers (which was my point) as a ledger is a type of spreadsheet.

As for the error I need to go home and grab my book to check the page numbers. I should be able to get it to you this evening (caveat emptor: I'm still a newb, there's always a chance I read it wrong and the book is away because I'm still at work in California).

I also don't go for the whole relativistic argument. Layout can be wrong. It is in this case. While Shall's counter argument was well reasoned, it doesn't address the problem that the QRS doesn't then apply a second grouping rule consistently. That is, this is the only spot where it uses such a grouping. If _all_ '+', '-', etc., where together then Shall's argument would hold much greater weight. However, as they aren't, it means that the same message that "open terrain" conveys is being conveyed here.

I also played my second game last night and I have to say I preferred the layout of the old QRS for two reasons:
1.) It didn't use up space for graphics
2.) The clustering of concepts seemed better (this item is a matter of preference)

I also really hope that this is taken well. Again kudos for going so far with a genre that hadn't even tried to look good in the past. Glossy pages! Heaven! Pictures! Diagrams with figures! Wonders never cease!

I just take exception to the comment that the QRS or figures aren't the rules when in fact they are. They are just a different way of stating the rules (the difference between the written rules and the figures on burst through was very confusing until I read the errata). They layout the rules in the most sparse fashion possible. They should also point back where possible to fuller explanations in the _main text_ (note I do not say rules).

I also tire of playing a game and having somebody point out "do it yourself". I was attracted to this game because of its level of support. A level of support I will encourage by writing good reviews, suggesting people buy the game, and through further purchases. I'm fully willing to put my money where my mouth is and _buy_ a _good_ QRS that is plastic coated.

Also the "thousands" argument ignores good tech support policy (remember I'm a computer geek). A majority of customers who experience a problem don't complain. Why? It takes time and money. How many of you have complained about MS? How many have _called_ Microsoft? Some may have but there is a huge disparity between the two numbers.

This sounds pretty pedantic to me. We've had no trouble reading it in our group....

NICKJ!!!
Please, Please do that and send it to me if not to much trouble!! A "Fixed chart is all I asked for not a rewrite of the rules! That would be great! My only other idea was to take a pen draw lines across and when people say (and yes new people will say bwcause they may not have found the free QRS and they may be new players) "Hey, the chart in the back of my book is diffrent. Why are we using theone you drew on"? I willjust give them the link to FOG and go to the forum and ask why. Then they can be told 1000 of gamers read it this way there must be something wrong with you and all the guys you game with.

NickJ, I so look foward to your corrected charts. And I can tell you the group from Chicago and the NW burbs will thank you to the bottom of our 15mm Lead little armies.
And my 28mm Samurai bow down to you in Gashio.
Irondog

nickj wrote: Despite the comment below you are correct in this context. A chart is a spreadsheet. A spreadsheet is not nor was it always limited to computers (which was my point) as a ledger is a type of spreadsheet.

a chart is not a spreadsheet, a spreadsheet is a type of chart. A few examples:
Chart - (from the word for card), used to present information in diagrams or tables.
Chart - Map
Chart - Wiring Diagram
Chart - Flow Diagram
Chart - Spreadsheet (used for mathematical calculation as excel can do most of these)
Chart - top 40 sellers
Chart - Table of contents
Chart - a simplified view of a larger text.

But this is a QRS anyway

We can all be pedantic and most of us here are pedantic.

But if it would improve peoples experience perhaps it should be edited. Just need a volunteer. As, IIRC, the one on the website was done by a volunteer (it seems 10 pressed men would have been better in the eyes of some ) and the rules won't be re-printed for a good while.

No offence ment but if this could have been easily fixed by those that required it, and the peoples friends were happy playing with that I can't see a reason why you don't do it. Fix the charts/tables spreadsheet all you want for you/group.
But me myself are happy with the ones I downloaded from here and have been playing with them for the last ten months and just from my point of view would'nt want to download a new amended chart and aminate another four sheets.
Now if we've had three pages about the QRS what about getting back to the rules thing anyone for contractions with a forward move within 2 Mu I think we sh..............only joking

david53 wrote: from my point of view would'nt want to download a new amended chart and aminate another four sheets.

You wouldn't have to Dave, you are happy with the one size fits all one that you have

Phil I've PM'd you.

I have never said I was a Rhodes scholar I am a Lieutenant in the fire service. Therefore not the sharpest tack in the box. So I really don't know what the diffrence between a chart or a spreadsheet or a pandemic. No wait, I know what a pandemic is.

Yes I could change scribble on my chart and I probably will. Since the free one is still wrong. Maybe next duty day I will make my own QRS using Exel, a spreadsheet. If I have room I may cut and paste some of those nifty pictures on from the QRS sheet that is free.

Never in my right mind did I ever thing correcting something that is wrong (yes wrong as per the QRS in the middle of the book). I would think they should all look the same. I know (see line one) that you cannot redo the book and I don't think I ever asked for that to be done. Nor did I think the 1000+ who have the present chart to download a new one. I was just looking out for the (hopefully) 1000+ more who, like most of our group used the charts wrong for several games. And like me maybe they don't play in tournements and have people who live and breath the rules to correct them. Lucky we had 2 guys like that or we would still be playing the rules wrong going by the theory "Well 2 charts are read like this, one reads like this 2 out of 3 wins".

And maybe in my chart I will add the + for shooting into 3 rank formations and my Swiss may be elite. But that is a easy fix as that is "House rules".

Thank god I did not question something major in the rules, I would be burned at the stake.

irondog068 wrote:I have never said I was a Rhodes scholar I am a Lieutenant in the fire service.

Hmm, not sure which is worse, commisioned in the army or the Fire service

Thank god I did not question something major in the rules, I would be burned at the stake.

Even if something is terribly wrong people who like it jump to its defence, ask any Newcastle United fan.

irondog068 wrote:
... I would be burned at the stake.

But at least you'd know who to call.

DIE THREAD! DIE DIE DIE!

DaiSho wrote:DIE THREAD! DIE DIE DIE!

Is that Irondog shouting 'Die QRS, Die!!'