tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8406516107920480032.post8258447042787883329..comments2023-09-20T01:15:13.809-07:00Comments on Two Sides to the Coin: Bridge BustingErichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17973885708132273602noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8406516107920480032.post-87405506747221044742008-06-03T11:44:00.000-07:002008-06-03T11:44:00.000-07:00No worries, Eric. I normally don't get into these ...No worries, Eric. I normally don't get into these discussions, but I wanted to correct the impression that there was some guiding force behind various MMP rulebooks. Once I started writing, I naturally started respondng to other points.<BR/><BR/>I don't do the lay out the rulebooks, but I can almost guarentee that the WED book will look the same--sorry. <BR/><BR/>As for cross refs, I agree that they are essential and I tried to add as many as possible to the TDC rules. Looks like I just dropped the ball on cohesion hits. Unfortunate, but not surprising with such a massive project. Anyway, I hope you and your buddies enjoy the game and the rules don't get in your way too much.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11686616056397261114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8406516107920480032.post-8187525453424517242008-06-03T11:33:00.000-07:002008-06-03T11:33:00.000-07:00Jon,Thank you very much for responding! It's nice...Jon,<BR/><BR/>Thank you very much for responding! <BR/><BR/>It's nice to know our blog is occasionally read by people beyond our own gaming group.<BR/><BR/>I am fully aware that it is impossible to create an instructional manual that works for everyone - I do this for a living, though in the software industry not for game rules. At least with game rules, you know people are reading what you write!<BR/><BR/>Let me give you a little more background on how I came to the opinion I did. (I'm unfortunately doing this without the rules handy - they're at home, I'm at work.)<BR/><BR/>When I was attempting to teach myself this game while reading through the rules, I decided to read the summary rules first. That was a nice quick intro to the game, but didn't actually detail anything. I think referring to that as a "rulebook" is actually a mistake. It's an introduction and works well as that.<BR/><BR/>Realizing I now had a context, but no details, I dove into the actual rules. The specific example that keeps coming to mind as the catalyst to my frustration is Cohesion Hits. IIRC, they are first mentioned as something you can take during movement to allow more flexibility in going into or coming out of column. No indication of the repercussions is mentioned, nor is there a reference to anywhere else. I looked in the TOC to find Cohesion Hits, and they are not listed. They then come up occasionally between that point and when they are actually detailed in the combat results. And never with any indication of either the game effect of a cohesion hit nor where that game effect is described.<BR/><BR/>However - and here's part of my beef with the documentation organization - Cohesion Hits are not simply combat results. They can be taken in lieu of suppression in many cases, and putting them under combat results addresses only a portion of the situations.<BR/><BR/>If you had simply included cross references in the manual, nearly all my beefs would be satisfied. A simple "(19.3.3)" placed after the first reference to Cohesion Hits on a page is all that's required.<BR/><BR/>Finally, please do not put rules in the glossary. Glossaries are definitions of terms, not rules. <BR/><BR/>You and I both know that wargame rulebooks are complex things, and parts build on other parts. Not linking the parts together makes it FAR more difficult to learn the game on your own than necessary. Further, given that there is no index and the TOC only contains entries two levels deep while many of the critical rules are three levels deep means they're impossible to find without either knowing where they are or flipping through the book in hopes you catch them.<BR/><BR/>All this said - we didn't have a single question that wasn't eventually answered in the rulebook. It DOES seem complete - just very difficult to use for someone learning from the rulebook. If I was being taught this game by someone who already knows it (and many of the people giving this game fantastic reviews on BoardGameGeek seem to fall into this category) then you and I wouldn't be having this conversation.<BR/><BR/>I'm hoping MMP decides to update the basic series rules for the upcoming When Eagles Dare. And I sincerely hope they decide to reduce the amount of whitespace, add in cross-references and an index, and make it available electronically so we can search.<BR/><BR/>If you get a chance, try to track down a copy of Games Workshops Warmaster rulebook. Take a look at the summary rules in the back - if I get time, THAT's what I'm going to try to create from the combination of existing rulebooks and support material on the website.<BR/><BR/>Again, Jon, thank you VERY much for commenting. I do hope you understand the direction I'm coming from and don't feel like a sheep walking among the wolves :)<BR/><BR/>TDC seems to be a very good game - it just takes longer to learn than it should from the materials at hand.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17973885708132273602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8406516107920480032.post-52327485849123016332008-06-03T04:23:00.000-07:002008-06-03T04:23:00.000-07:00Well, I wrote the TDC rules and and of course am d...Well, I wrote the TDC rules and and of course am disappointed if someone doesn't like them. But I've learned that it's very, very hard to please everyone.<BR/><BR/>I do have a few responses to your comments below, but I'm mainly writing to correct a misimpression one of the posters seems to have. The only reason the glossary is in the back is because I put it there. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything MMP does or did in its other games, and everything to do with the fact that I hate rulebooks that put defined terms or glossaries up front. A matter of personal preference where we differ. I can see why the poster would think there was some relationship among various MMP rulebooks, but in fact there isn't.<BR/><BR/>On some of the other stuff, I agree that the rules should have been indexed (in fact I asked for that), but it was out of my hands. I do think the ToC is far more useful that you do, however. Your difficultly finding the cohesion hit rule leaves me a bit baffled. Combat results are listed in the ToC under section 19 ("19.2 What the combat results mean"), and cohesion hits are easily found from there. Sorry you had trouble with that. <BR/><BR/>I do agree that weapons classes should have been better explained, particularly on the counter example. On the other hand, the charts seem to do a good job with this and other than your complaint, I haven't seen any other gamers who had these problems. <BR/><BR/>You may want to avoid my other rulebooks: Red Star Rising, Warriors of God, and soon to be published Angola.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11686616056397261114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8406516107920480032.post-24056948046070847192008-06-02T10:29:00.000-07:002008-06-02T10:29:00.000-07:00Obviously, I needed further rewrite of this post :...Obviously, I needed further rewrite of this post :)<BR/><BR/>I do appreciate the irony of a miniatures painter griping about army-specific unit designations, but I'll say two things in my defense:<BR/><BR/>1: 95% of my painting over the years has been SYW and earlier.<BR/><BR/>2: Part of what makes it a non-issue in miniatures is that you have the miniature right there depicting what the unit is. From 3 feet away, a counter is a counter is a counter. With miniatures, from three feet away, I can tell that it's infantry, artillery (and with a good idea of how big the gun is), or tank. I don't care what markings are on it. With a counter, that's all you've got.<BR/><BR/>And, about the "glossary in the back" issue. I must say, upon further reflection, it's not the glossary in the back that's the issue. It's the fact that there's rules embedded in the glossary, and no cross-references whatsoever between them. The problem just becomes worse when the glossary's in the back.<BR/><BR/>I'm seriously considering rewriting the "summary" rulebook to actually be useful, and not a waste of paper. It will actually be decent practice for a direction we're going here at work.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17973885708132273602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8406516107920480032.post-58987436076927434832008-06-01T22:41:00.000-07:002008-06-01T22:41:00.000-07:00Two comments on this report - 1) I find it interes...Two comments on this report - <BR/><BR/>1) I find it interesting that someone who paints historical miniatures would dislike historical unit designations. I'm saying this more or less tongue in cheek, but you get the irony. I grew up on the NATO symbols just like everyone else, and I find the current trend toward "new" symbologies distracting, but historical wargames are about history and putting NATO symbols on WWII era units is much like putting a PzIV silhouette on a unit that was made up of Shermans. It's effective, but wrong.<BR/><BR/>2) You can blame the whole "glossary in the back" thing on the Area Movement games like Breakout: Normandy that came out near the end of the 90's. One of the dumbest ideas ever. I spent 20 minutes looking through that rulebook for a definition of the dice. MMP picked up the idea when they did Monty's Gamble, which used the format of BK:N more or less wholesale, and it apparently found an adherent in this game as well. I don't mind if you have a specific rule in the glossary, as you have to define things somewhere and where better than a glossary, but to put it in the back where no one looks is a nod to aesthetics at the expense of usability.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps more annoying for me is the conversational style that Starkweather uses in his rules. Lots of little asides that are appropriate over a gaming table and useless in rules that are intended to convey airtight rules. Berg and Mark Walker are guilty of the same mistakes, thinking that clever writing makes the game better. Put that stuff in a Player Note, leave it out of the damned rule. <BR/><BR/>I've got this on order, and may not even bother with the rules but look to one of you two to teach me. I'd ask you, Eric, but you'll be at the "real" WBC in August... <BR/><BR/>;-)Dughttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08827175240352968894noreply@blogger.com