Slitherine

LaurenceP wrote:When will you create and actualize the v2 errata online, as you did for v1?

There isn't an offline V2 errata yet

People here still eager in never ending rule arguing in this Forum?
For me as a beginner, I am disappointed that the rule team/Slitherine does not feel the need in publishing the official errata v2 for print out, including some obviously necessary clarifications.
Once you decided to distribute the rules in printed version, say B and be prepared for actualization and corrections accordingly in due time (some call it After Sales or Customer Service). There are some good examples of other rule editors.
But no, it looks like you expect players to travel around with a bible full of copied discussion threads and to continue interpretate rules at the tournament tables together with umpires instead of playing matches.
So once more, WHEN will they publish the obviously necessary errata v2 for print out ?

LaurenceP wrote:So once more, WHEN will they publish the obviously necessary errata v2 for print out ?

Well what exactly are these "necessary errata" for v2 you feel are needed?

...maybe to summarize mistakes and to clarify unclear wordings/diagrams that are in the rulebook, otherwise we would not have this load of RULE questions with different answers of experts, resulting in topics remaining unclear or inofficial?
Why this topic is called "Version 2.0 Errata"...?

See my post a few days ago - So once more, WHEN will you publish the obviously necessary errata v2 for print out ?

Or all those mistakes and unclear wording in the rule book v2, identified in various topics of this Forum, are not worth to be summarized and clarified?
Really necessary to have gamers discussing instead of playing?

Would appreciate a statement of the Moderators and/or Slitherine Core/Design Team.

LaurenceP wrote:See my post a few days ago - So once more, WHEN will you publish the obviously necessary errata v2 for print out ?

Or all those mistakes and unclear wording in the rule book v2, identified in various topics of this Forum, are not worth to be summarized and clarified?
Really necessary to have gamers discussing instead of playing?

Would appreciate a statement of the Moderators and/or Slitherine Core/Design Team.

I am not a moderator, or Slitherine or Design team. But I have played over 100 games over version 2 and been the umpire in several competitions.

I do not think there is a need for a version 2 errata. Yes there are parts that could be clarified but they are very minor. Maybe 2 times in 100 games would a clarification be useful. And for these 2 times we were able to work something out.

The people doing all the discussing are usually those who do not play much and are just reading the rule book. A bit like learning to drive by reading a book!

Returning this thread to its original purpose, there is a need for clarification on P140 to cover troops other than LF who shoot from a position where they cannot be seen, e.g. MF Bowmen in a gully.

[quote="grahambriggs.I do not think there is a need for a version 2 errata. Yes there are parts that could be clarified but they are very minor. Maybe 2 times in 100 games would a clarification be useful. And for these 2 times we were able to work something out.

The people doing all the discussing are usually those who do not play much and are just reading the rule book. A bit like learning to drive by reading a book![/quote][/quote]

Graham, since your reply, I observed the "very minor parts" to come. And there were major parts since. Response and counter-arguing were lead by people like you, Phil, Dave, Pete, Gozerius and others cracks, so no rookies! See for example Bursting through or not, General in the Front rank, Flank marches and dismounting - you call the discussions there very minor parts?
I agree, play and refer in unclear situations to the rule book, but it does not work if too many rules are not clear or badly indexed. Simply too much to call FoG V2 a clear rule set. Look at the volume of the Rule Questions in this Forum - understandable that no one wants to start an errata. Better re-writing the rule book.

LaurenceP wrote:! See for example Bursting through or not, General in the Front rank, Flank marches and dismounting - you call the discussions there very minor parts?

I do. The first two were resolved by reading the rules, so you don't need an errata. The third is a bit unclear, and an errata would clarify, but a reasonable conclusion was reached.

I have played several hundred games and have never seen any of these three occur. Nor have I had any calls about them while umpiring.

There are areas of the rules that an errata would help with. The most common in my experience being the rules around orb formations. It's just that they are encountered very rarely. However, what you seem to be looking for is a cross between errata and Frequently Asked Questions. I suspect the latter would be more useful in general; and has the benefit that it doesn't need the authors' intervention.

I think I have just noticed a small omission in the 2.0 hardcover rulebook. A bullet point on page 128: 'Elephants and Camels' section states that "Camelry are only so affected by elephants". I.e. camelry and elephants cause disorder to a bunch of troop types mentioned in the bullet point just above that one, and elephants similarly disorder the camelry. This is fine. However, looking at the table on page 136: 'Troop Types', under Elephants' Description ,the last line says "Elephants disorder horses". We should add here "and camelry".

grahambriggs wrote: There are areas of the rules that an errata would help with. The most common in my experience being the rules around orb formations. It's just that they are encountered very rarely. However, what you seem to be looking for is a cross between errata and Frequently Asked Questions. I suspect the latter would be more useful in general; and has the benefit that it doesn't need the authors' intervention.

This is précisely the need. Since I starter 3 years ago I did not see any author's sign of interest. There are probably reasons for that, but in these conditions it is normal to give delegation or succession.

If this is not happening, then the proposal from Graham is indeed the best way. I remember also Robert has posted several times this idea of a small community of historical players who would issue that faq.
But someone has to take the lead otherwise it will add to the good-but-not-executed-ideas list.

To come back on the need for such a document : even if most of the time, by reading carefully and several times the rule, you would find a consensus, in the heat of a game, compétition or not, who won't spoil half an hour to fix something that will be anyway challenged again the next time you face another player.
Secondly, there are different understanding on some specific points from the rule, especially from various championships/countries . Having common and written interprétations - or illustrations - would help much.

If this community of players starts to write this faq, it would be even helpful to have a contact in each regularly planning country . This person having the rôle to broadcast the clarification within his own championship.

This is one major interest of FOG for having a set of rules quite clear and exhaustive. Players might get frustrated or go for other rules or periods otherwise.

Franck

Hi guys

May I volunteer to put together an FAQ for V2 in the UK which covers the few queries that keep cropping up and the general consensus on how it should be rules upon?

Rob

Hi Rob
That'd be great.
HH

Robert241167 wrote:... an FAQ for V2 ...

Well done that man. Are you going to call it a "Commentary"?

vexillia wrote:

Robert241167 wrote:... an FAQ for V2 ...

Well done that man. Are you going to call it a "Commentary"?

"I called Richard last night"?

At Rob Taylor's instigation, several of the regular BHGS umpires have produced a set of clarifications for V2 which have been reviewed by Richard Bodley Scott.

They have been sent to the BHGS and have now been published and will be adopted for future BHGS events. We also hope that that they will be adopted by non-BHGS competition organisers and also international players.

http://www.bhgs.org.uk/news/bhgs-umpire ... -published

Having read the guidelines, I can give a solid endorsement for most points.
The interpretation of the mechanics of fighting vs an orb are especially good.
It should be made clear that bases defending FF shoot in the direction they are facing.

However, with regards to conforming, I believe that the emphasis should be on adjusting position by the minimum necessary to conform with an enemy base, or overlap, as opposed to favoring full FE contact with the originally contacted base. However, since this really only is a factor when striking at an angle the front edge only of an enemy line, all other contacts being adequately covered in the examples of play, it is not a serious impediment. Though it does lead to some gamey wheels.
Similarly, your take on support shooting violates the impact combat table which permits each front rank base in contact 2 dice and each support shooting base 1 die. When a non front rank base is contacted, it is treated as contact with the enemy front. Since each base is limited to either 2 dice if fighting in the front rank, or one die if support shooting, allowing a base to do both is patently unfair to the charging player. Effectively, you are allowing the entire file to fight twice. This is not permitted when multiple contacts are made against the front corner base, and should not happen when fighting a non-front rank base.
The problem stems from a bit of rules schizophrenia in which the intro paragraph and combat table stress the importance of the front rank (The combat table allows dice only to front rank bases and their support shooters.), but the combat mechanism permits non front rank bases in contact with chargers to fight. I believe that a better way to handle contacts on a side edge is to treat the entire file as one unit, with 2 dice for the front rank, and 1 die for a support shooter, treating more than one contact the same as if all were against the front rank base. But this would be a major rules edit.
The

Thanks gozerius; I suggested the orb wording as I'd had a particularly tricky umpire ruling on it and it certainly needs clarification.

I hope the conforming bit works out OK. I had thought that we had something that works for both the words and the diagrams in the rules and limits the cheesy wheels a little. We did get RBS' blessing on it. I guess we'll see with a bit of experience