Slitherine

The Field of Glory FAQ and Errata are updated to version 5.0 (FAQ) and 1.11 (Errata)

http://www.fieldofglory.com/onthefieldofglory.php

I was just curious, with the new version, are the changes added to the end of the document?

Thanks

Brian

petirouge wrote:The Field of Glory FAQ and Errata are updated to version 5.0 (FAQ) and 1.11 (Errata)

http://www.fieldofglory.com/onthefieldofglory.php

In the Lykian ally list in the Errata, the points for the warriors are wrong: the warriors with drepanon should be 6 whether or not they have a light spear, the others should be 5 (not 4).

Best wishes,
Matthew

I've just taken a look at the latest FAQs.

'Can stakes be placed (or picked up) while in an enemy restricted area?

Yes'

Surely this is incorrect? Stakes can only be picked up if there are no enemy within 6 MU?

Pete

petedalby wrote:I've just taken a look at the latest FAQs.

'Can stakes be placed (or picked up) while in an enemy restricted area?

Yes'

Surely this is incorrect? Stakes can only be picked up if there are no enemy within 6 MU?

Pete

Ooops, now we need an errata sheet for the FAQ . We put the bit in brackets in for consistency, forgetting the 6 MU rule. (Although we weren't happy with it - thank goodness we thought of the problem previously!). Will correct it ASAP.

In the Lykian ally list in the Errata, the points for the warriors are wrong: the warriors with drepanon should be 6 whether or not they have a light spear, the others should be 5 (not 4).

And an errata sheet for the errata sheet! Will get on to this ASAP.

Thanks Richard - just delete the bit in brackets and problem solved.

Cheers

Pete

BrianC wrote:I was just curious, with the new version, are the changes added to the end of the document?

No. As near as possible they are added in the order they appear in the rules / lists.

Thanks Richard,

Can I make a possible suggestion in the light of positive criticism. Would it be possible to have at the end of the document being changed such as the FAQ a list of what sections were changed in the latest version? It doesn't have to be overly fancy, you can add a quick sentence explaining the change or just the section number that changed. It should be easily done as when the person alters the doc they can just add the reference to the end.

I ask that because you have to read the entire document and look for changes no matter how small. It would be nice to have a quick summary of what changed. In my job we have different versions of our reports and this in invaluable.

Just thought I would toss it out as I hope it would be beneficial to others as well.

Thanks again

Brian

From an umpire/list checker's POV I've always felt that making the players read the whole document again has its advantages ...

nikgaukroger wrote:From an umpire/list checker's POV I've always felt that making the players read the whole document again has its advantages ...

I have found in a course as well as experience that when people read things they have read before, they tend to skim more. Its natural human nature. When re-reading the rules I really have to force myself to read everything like I did the first time, otherwise a sentence or two can be missed or missread again and an important concept would be missed.

My point is that if we know what has changed, we can focus on the changes and make sure that we not miss them by reading the entire document again and maybe miss a changed word or sentence. And I agree re-reading the FAQ is always good, but its just nice to have a summary of what has changed. As it is now I have to compare verisons sentence by sentence and I find it too time consuming, I'd rather be painting .

Brian

BrianC wrote: My point is that if we know what has changed, we can focus on the changes and make sure that we not miss them by reading the entire document again and maybe miss a changed word or sentence. And I agree re-reading the FAQ is always good, but its just nice to have a summary of what has changed. As it is now I have to compare verisons sentence by sentence and I find it too time consuming, I'd rather be painting .
Brian

As an alternative to a summary how about marking what has been added, changed, and DELETED. One of the limitation of the current system is that it doesn't highlight when an item is slightly changed, or removed.

Underlining changes would be great. I'm sure Word can do that.

It's corected ?

philqw78 wrote:Underlining changes would be great. I'm sure Word can do that.

If you edit a doc in MS Word you can turn on Track Changes and it will highlight for you any changes including text deleted.

Is there any chance of something like this being implemented for future FAQ and Errata releases?

Thanks

Brian

The problem with track changes is it can get pretty ugly.

What I have done at time is create a PDF of the track changes version as well so that I can see what has changed and then have the short final version thereafter. I find you only really need to look at the changes the first time to get accustomed to where they are, so not really worth having it permanent in my view. Personal opinion only of course.

Si

shall wrote:The problem with track changes is it can get pretty ugly.

What I have done at time is create a PDF of the track changes version as well so that I can see what has changed and then have the short final version thereafter. I find you only really need to look at the changes the first time to get accustomed to where they are, so not really worth having it permanent in my view. Personal opinion only of course.

Si

Hey Si,

I know what you mean about tracking changes when there are many changes over time. And I agree regarding only needing it once. And that was more in line with my original question about putting a short summary at the end where changes are listed. Even if its only section numbers listed at least we know what has changed so that we can focus more on those sections so as not to miss anything.

Especially with my experience with FOG I need to fuly understand the meaning of what is written as it is not always clear to me with what is written if that makes any sense . So if there is a change, we can then look at the changed section and make sure that we fully understand the ramifications that may result and at least give us the chance to ask questions.

And again I do documentation at work and know that change lists like this are very easy and fast. And only need to track 1 set of changes from the last version to the new version.

On the other hand is it possible to get a ms word version with the tracked changes?

Thanks

Brian

Technically I am not competent enough to answer that one as far as MS Word working etc. and

I am sure we can give it some thought and come up with something that will make it easy to see the changes.

Si

I agree track changes is a mess and doesn't help over multiple revisions.

How about just parenthesize the revision date (or rev number) after the relevant sentence or paragraph when something is changed? It's clear when changes were made - very helpful when updating one's book.

When a sentence or two are changed it's good to reread it, I agree, however rereading the whole FAQ or errata for a change - nah, normal humans not being paid to do it are likely to miss something.

MikeK wrote:I agree track changes is a mess and doesn't help over multiple revisions.

How about just parenthesize the revision date (or rev number) after the relevant sentence or paragraph when something is changed? It's clear when changes were made - very helpful when updating one's book.

When a sentence or two are changed it's good to reread it, I agree, however rereading the whole FAQ or errata for a change - nah, normal humans not being paid to do it are likely to miss something.

It was merely a brainstorming idea Mike. I agree it can get ugly. I do report documentation all the time and when I make a report document change. I simply add a line to the change page at the end and say what I changed and when.

The document writer does not need to go into a lot of detail or any detail other than what has changed. Right now I can't tell what has changed and worry that something important will be missed. With these rules I have noticed that even if you miss one single word it can have a huge impact. And when people re-read things that they have once or more times they tend to skim sub conscously. So simply saying re-read the whole document will not fix the issue.

And regarding additional time, a few seconds. I would be more than happy to to the additional work if the author wishes as I think a list of current changes would make the doc even better.

Brian

Maybe just putting a vertical bar in the margin where a particular section has been changed? This is something I have seen in specifications in my professional world.

Chris Rivers