Slitherine

Not sure if this is mention elswhere but the choice of font for the rules has to be reviewed for future editions, army lists etc. The size of the numbers is my main gripe especially "2" and "4" when placed next to the "MU". Also the numbers often seem positioned as "subscripts" ie. below the level of the line of text. The numbers are the imortant piece of information that need to be prominent so as to be found easily. FogA and FogR don't seem have this problem so why was there a change.

I would think it has to do with cost the font style allows for less printed pages thus cutting printing costs.

Dave

david53 wrote:I would think it has to do with cost the font style allows for less printed pages thus cutting printing costs.

The type face appears to also be a homage to the period "1786 GLC Fournier Normal"

Personally a plain page without the lines in the background would have made it much easier to read, I think that is more distracting than the font. That is what I have always found makes it harder to read than the previous rules.

I'd put up with the poor choice of font if only the rules didn't contain so many errors. Having played my first game I really like the rules. But please Osprey/Slitherine, can we have future publications published after far better proof-reading.

AlanCutner wrote:I'd put up with the poor choice of font if only the rules didn't contain so many errors. Having played my first game I really like the rules. But please Osprey/Slitherine, can we have future publications published after far better proof-reading.

AN understatement. If it was not for the period and the authors, well...

hazelbark wrote:

AlanCutner wrote:I'd put up with the poor choice of font if only the rules didn't contain so many errors. Having played my first game I really like the rules. But please Osprey/Slitherine, can we have future publications published after far better proof-reading.

AN understatement. If it was not for the period and the authors, well...

I too like the rules, but their do seem like a lot of mistakes due to proof reading.

I only hope this will not put of those that don't know FOG or the rule writers,

Dave

hazelbark wrote:

AlanCutner wrote:I'd put up with the poor choice of font if only the rules didn't contain so many errors. Having played my first game I really like the rules. But please Osprey/Slitherine, can we have future publications published after far better proof-reading.

AN understatement. If it was not for the period and the authors, well...

I would hope that both an errata list and a revised QRS would be offered to either the original beta testers (if they didn't miss many of these errors) or to a new group perhaps (better to get fresh eyes and minds looking specifically for errors as opposed to playing games and testing that) before it is issued at large. The errors are unsettling, but as previously stated, i think there is a very enjoyable game here. It's normal gamer nature to want to be able to follow the rules exactly, and it becomes frustrating when you can't. But also, again, I appreciate the authors popping on here to respond to questions that sometimes can be answered with a careful read of the bits without the errors.

I'm putting together an errate at the moment, and have to admit that the proof reading of the army list section has been poor.
So far I have 11 update for the rules (most quite minor), and more than double that for the 20 pages of army lists.

I will get selected Beta testers to check them before publishing them in general.

Thanks, Terry! You could ask any of us for help anytime. Your rules have stirred a new interest/re-interest in Napoleonic battles here! (I even have an eagle again! Last dude seen holding one had a red tunic and spoke Latin!)