Are the rules for this wonderful game going to be rewritten?

[Amarel]

You'll also want to take a look at where the Writer is from as American English rules and British English rules and even Australian english rules(where the OP is from) differ as well.

Did you just infer that Australia was behind the times? :spider:

But, yes, that just clarifies the point that grammar is difficult, if not impossible, to lock down across all territories as 100% accurate; the important thing is a clear and defined ruleset .

[Major_Gilbear]

You guys need to imagine what the rules look like to someone who (a) has never played the game, and ( doesn't have someone actively teaching them. You're being rather short sighted.

Whilst it might be true that a number of folks were/are taught the game by a friend, many had to learn it on their own directly from the book quite recently (as this is a fairly new game afterall).

Personally, I read the book in one go and understood all the rules.

Did I remember every ability, talent and skill detail? No.

Did I remember all the core mechanics and understand them well? Yes.

There is also a fairly comprehensive glossary which should guide you to the right parts of the book in the absence of an index.

If anything, I found the main game rules being chopped up repeatedly by a few pages of story more distracting than what you're describing.

As for short-sightedness, I think you should consider your own comments. The game is pretty new (released six months or so ago?) and many people here know exactly what it is like to be a complete beginner without a tutor.

I also feel that you're being very arrogant in assuming that issues like typos or clarity of rule description haven't already been raised and noted; a quick forum search would have revealed previous discussions of this as well as the FAQ/Errata documents which partly address this.

[Raintar]

I agree strongly with the thread starter. We've actually stopped playing in my area because were tired of looking up rules and having disputes. It seems that every time we play some crazy scenario comes out that starts this big argument. What makes it worse is that rulings sometimes contradict the rules of the game and make it even more difficult to keep track of. Add in the errata and FAQ pages that we have to refer to every time and its just a waste when I could be playing a different game. Just my three cents...didn't I start a thread about this before?

[Wombats]

Sounds more like your playing group's attitude is stopping you, Raintar.

We had a room of a dozen people playing on the weekend and while I'm sure a few rules were misinterpreted, there were certainly no game-stoppers.

Might be time to shop around.

[Raintar]

No I also agree completely. It's like why do I have to deal with this when I could be playing some other game where I'm not wasting time with rules disputes like for example what we're playing now Dominion, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, Unknown Armies or Ticket to Ride.

You can pretty much look at my rules questions for the past 3 months and see the kinds of crazy stuff that has come up. I've even stumped rules marshals on 2 or 3 of them. Its just an unnecessary waste of time.

[Juliet]

Generally we just have a quick discussion about it, if no agreement can be made, we flip on it. Easy peasy...done.

Wombats and I and the other regulars generally have a great time playing, we take it lightly, make a lot of smack talk and don't get bogged down in the rules. Isn't the point to have fun?

[DangerousBeans]

Is that the British version of Bart Simpson?

That's Dennis the Menace, and he's been around much, much longer than that upstart Simpson! (1951!)

I feel this thread is becoming a strange thread. We're gamers, the apex of human evolution. Let it go....

[Starscream]

DangerousBean

you are 100% right when you talk about Infinity. Have you guys ever tried to read the infinity rulebook till the end in 1 effort? it gives me a headache everytime...and it is my favourite game!

i mean, you have 13 pages with troop abilities and 11 of weapons.....almost as many as game rules (29 pages)!!

God bless Wyrd for showing the world that skirmish games can be learnt without suffering from a migraine

Edited March 14, 2010 by Starscream

[Kelmor]

I think this thread has done its laps.

Favedave, as one of the guys here trying to make the rules language improve, I offer myself as a direct line of contact if you have issues that you do not see resolved in the errata.

Drop me a PM if you want to talk

[PanzerKraken]

I don't think being rewritten is needed, but wouldn't it at least make sense to simply fix up the errors and include the errata material in a next printing of the book? Whenever they sell out of the current run of the book and before printer does a new batch, at least try to incorporate all the errata. A complete rewrite or new version? No, but at least an eventual fixed up reprint.

Several other game companies have done this already, instead of waiting for a new edition or redoing it all, they would simply revise the content on following printings. Right now it is pretty bad for us new players when we got 14 page errata, more errata listed on the forum not in that big errata, then also toss in 6 more pages of faq material.

As for all the Infinity hate, the rules are quite clear for that game and there is very little errata/faq material. Infinity is just a much more complex game than most so it easily confuses.

Edited April 7, 2010 by PanzerKraken

[RitualNet]

I don't think being rewritten is needed, but wouldn't it at least make sense to simply fix up the errors and include the errata material in a next printing of the book? Whenever they sell out of the current run of the book and before printer does a new batch, at least try to incorporate all the errata. A complete rewrite or new version? No, but at least an eventual fixed up reprint.

The problem is, all the "early adopters" will end up with having to rebuy the rulebook. I know they don't 'have' to, but a reprint with the erratas fixed will cause some changes to the page layout, meaning possibly more or different artwork, more examples, maybe more other bits of information which would make the book worth getting again. That's (for me anyway) £50 spent on rules alone.

The other thing a friend who is getting into this mentioned, was the decision by GW to do their "mini rulebooks" in their starters. The book is devoid of fluff, and pure rules. A pure rules (updated with errata) A5 book would be cheaper, and easier to carry to games, while the big book is nice to have for the artwork, showing new people, etc.

I have no problems paying £10-12 for a A5 book, even more so if it's spiral bound so it can be folded over.

[PanzerKraken]

But no one has to buy the new rulebook. It is merely a reprint with the errata included, nothing stops a player from using the old book and play with errata sheets like we currently do. Other companies have done this, and everyone did not rush out and buy new books, I'm sure some do but many are fine just having a separate errata sheet.

If they reprint the book and just keep printing out more books with all these errors in it, it just seems like a missed opportunity. Even before I got into the game the most common complaint I saw toward the game on here and many other sites was people disappointment with all the errors and such in the current printing. I would just imagine it for the better to eventually get this issue resolved than to just let it linger for years and have a continually growing errata list.

[RitualNet]

It's true they don't have to, but a good few people will feel slighted by it i guess. I'm intending to do what I did with the original WFR book, print out snippets of the errata, and then put them in between the pages where they are needed. Just a good!

However, I still like the idea of the "rules only" mini rulebook.

[Kelmor]

It all comes down to philosophy of design.

I come from a philosophy that what is more important than anything is making sure that the play environment is stable and the rules are working as intended. I believe that if things need changing, they should be changed.

They should also be caught first, but the reality is that it will take at least a year of public play for some issue to come to light. There is no way that any miniatures company in the market could generate that kind of playtest volume let alone in the time frames they usually work in.

So what that leaves us with is Errata. I don't view errata as a bad thing. I think it proves that the devs are watching and care about their product.

[Justin]

It all comes down to philosophy of design.

I come from a philosophy that what is more important than anything is making sure that the play environment is stable and the rules are working as intended. I believe that if things need changing, they should be changed.

They should also be caught first, but the reality is that it will take at least a year of public play for some issue to come to light. There is no way that any miniatures company in the market could generate that kind of playtest volume let alone in the time frames they usually work in.

So what that leaves us with is Errata. I don't view errata as a bad thing. I think it proves that the devs are watching and care about their product.

I don't think anybody (well, anybody who posted today) is complaining that there IS errata. They're just confused as to why the most current errata wouldn't be included in subsequent print runs of the rulebook, which are bound to happen eventually. Not talking about a total rewrite of the rules or a new edition at all.

[WEiRD sKeTCH]

Because it would lead to confusion as to who had the most updated rulebook when facing each other, etc...

[Justin]

Because it would lead to confusion as to who had the most updated rulebook when facing each other, etc...

I don't think anymore than having online errata.

Not every player makes use of the website. I have gone to other game stores and had to explain to people what replace meant when growing nephilim, that Bete Noire's mark for death did indeed have a resist (that ****er just wouldn't believe me), etc.

I think that if I had been armed with a rule book with a big "R" on the front for revised I would have had a much easier time of things.

But that's me. And maybe I've just had some bad experiences. This is kind of a dead horse, so I probably shouldn't have posted, but I wanted to help clarify panzerkraken's point; we LOVE the errata, don't stop that, the difference in philosophy is how it's presented.

[Kelmor]

I don't think anybody (well, anybody who posted today) is complaining that there IS errata. They're just confused as to why the most current errata wouldn't be included in subsequent print runs of the rulebook, which are bound to happen eventually. Not talking about a total rewrite of the rules or a new edition at all.

That is a fair confusion which I can lay to rest with an example as to why its not the best idea.

Imagine that you and a buddy are both looking in your books, at a section that had errata trying to figure something out, and your both coming up with different answers.

Errata is consistent. Go find it, it adjusts the snapshot of whats in print. I personally do not think that once a book is printed it should ever be changed until released as a clear new edition.

[Kelmor]

I don't think anymore than having online errata.

Not every player makes use of the website. I have gone to other game stores and had to explain to people what replace meant when growing nephilim, that Bete Noire's mark for death did indeed have a resist (that ****er just wouldn't believe me), etc.

I think that if I had been armed with a rule book with a big "R" on the front for revised I would have had a much easier time of things.

But that's me. And maybe I've just had some bad experiences. This is kind of a dead horse, so I probably shouldn't have posted, but I wanted to help clarify panzerkraken's point; we LOVE the errata, don't stop that, the difference in philosophy is how it's presented.

And lets not forget the ever popular "now I have to buy another book" syndrome.

I think we are in agreement in general. Its really a question of timing.

When do you release the revised book with all the errata. I think that its pretty easy to tell when that time is from a development perspective, then it just comes down to, will the community accept a revised book right now.

[Justin]

That is a fair confusion which I can lay to rest with an example as to why its not the best idea.

Imagine that you and a buddy are both looking in your books, at a section that had errata trying to figure something out, and your both coming up with different answers.

Errata is consistent. Go find it, it adjusts the snapshot of whats in print. I personally do not think that once a book is printed it should ever be changed until released as a clear new edition.

I think a big white "R" stamp on the front with the word revised underneath and the date would put that to rest. Less confusing than V2 stat cards, in my opinion. (which, might I add, I'm all for)

However, the argument against this idea, which I have no way of countering and totally understand if it's the reason is printing costs. Adding the errata in means changing page numbers, lay out, etc. I know nothing about the printing industry, or the costs associated with it. If revising the rulebook is simply not an economically viable option, I totally understand.

But I know what I would find easier to play with in my games.

[Justin]

And lets not forget the ever popular "now I have to buy another book" syndrome.

I think we are in agreement in general. Its really a question of timing.

When do you release the revised book with all the errata. I think that its pretty easy to tell when that time is from a development perspective, then it just comes down to, will the community accept a revised book right now.

Fair enough.

[Poko]

Because it would lead to confusion as to who had the most updated rulebook when facing each other, etc...

It's generally fixed with a simple "Edition 2" or "3rd printing" in the book's title page or credits

Anyhow, I think putting the errata changes into further printings would be good idea- it may not mean much to people who already have the book (although I admit I do struggle a bit with both the book AND checking if the printout doesn't change it), but it'd mean new people already learn the "correct" version of the game, whereas telling them to go read the Errata as soon as they've learned the actual rules (I mean, it practically re-writes the movement section wholesale) might be off-putting to some.

[sakurazuka38]

Excuse me for my poor english.

I've heard that a second book will be released this summer.

Is it a second edition of the rule book (with corrections) or is it a complement to this first book?

[WEiRD sKeTCH]

Excuse me for my poor english.

I've heard that a second book will be released this summer.

Is it a second edition of the rule book (with corrections) or is it a complement to this first book?

Your English is just fine.

The second book will be a supplement with a lot of new and exciting things inside it.

[Kelmor]

I wont speak to the money involved as I do not know the details but i do know that changing a print run costs money.

Most miniatures games live by the community they create. Game companies do not function in a traditional business model sense, they are almost entirely word of mouth driven in niche markets.

I know in my book (and on the cards) I black out anything that has been changed, and red out anything that has been removed. That way I can never miss that something has changed