Proofreading/editing UvulaBob's rules rewrite so it can become official

[lazyj]

   p19 Under OUTREACHED: "If your unit charges is charged by a larger unit,..."
       missing 'or'

Actually I just noticed this myself. But from what I understand, Outreached only applies if a unit is charged by a larger unit. So the fix is to remove "charges" entirely, and you end up with:

OUTREACHED
If your unit is charged by a larger unit, your unit is Outreached and gets (-1)/0/0. This penalty is in addition to any Frightened penalty that unit may suffer.

[rog5]

Oops.  What lazyj said.

   p19 Under OUTREACHED: "If your unit charges is charged by a larger unit,..."
       missing 'or'

Actually I just noticed this myself. But from what I understand, Outreached only applies if a unit is charged by a larger unit. So the fix is to remove "charges" entirely, and you end up with:

OUTREACHED
If your unit is charged by a larger unit, your unit is Outreached and gets (-1)/0/0. This penalty is in addition to any Frightened penalty that unit may suffer.

[gull2112]

Might I offer a friendly amendment?

I think the rules will read cleaner if all exceptions are listed with page/section references at the end of the paragraph instead of in-text. It is very confusing for a newcomer to be reading rules, trying to grasp the initial concept, when exceptions are mentioned for inclusiveness.

So instead of writing "non-skirmishing non-flying units ...." it will just say "...units..." and the end of the paragraph will look like this. (skirmishers x.y pg.zz, flying units a.b pg.cc)

This will keep the body of the rules clean and yet if you were wondering about a certain situation you could easily check the rule and easily see if say, a flying unit, were an exception. Keyword exceptions could be boldfaced.

[Kevin]

So instead of writing "non-skirmishing non-flying units ...." it will just say "...units..." and the end of the paragraph will look like this. (skirmishers x.y pg.zz, flying units a.b pg.cc)

That sounds to me like it'll be really easy for people to misread the rulebook. 

"Of course my Hawkshold Swordsmen got an impact hit.  Look, it says that units get an impact hit."

"No, wait, at the bottom of the paragraph is the keyword cavalry."

"*@#$."       

---------------------


In other news, Uvulabob, if you haven't already, look over at this thread:  a whole bunch of rules just got officially added/changed, with more likely to come in the near future.

http://yourmovegames.com/forum/index.php/topic,2562.0.html

[gull2112]

Sorry to gainsay you Kevin, but that just ain't so.

[Kevin]

I actually think having keywords with references at either the end of the paragraph or footnoted at the bottom of the page is a fine idea, and would definitely bold them if possible, but would keep the regular text as is.

[gull2112]

That works for me!

[ChimpMasaki]

P19 States the courage modifier for being "In the red" as -1 instead of -2.

P18 The example given for the Overkill rule states "Because your Offensive Skill is greater than your opponent's Defensive Skill by 1, you can turn the 6 into a 5 and hit with all five dice."

That could be misread to mean that I can convert a 6 into a 5 for every point my skill is greater than my opponents!

Otherwise excellent work!

[elgin_j]

hmmm - I've only just stumbled on this today...

Anyway, liking the new format - much easier to digest.  Two points:

1 - Any intent to continue the paragraph numbering and index?  I love the ability to reference a specific rule in the v3.0 ruleset.

2 - Has the indirect movement rule been removed or am I missing something?  I'll clarify - having read that I can't see anywhere that says you can deliberately move a unit up behind the line in front on the direct path rule and then leave it there at your discretion.  What has been written down seems quite vague on this point...

[Kevin]

A new player on the forum tried learning the game with the 4.0 rulebook, and had this feedback (copied here from http://yourmovegames.com/forum/index.php/topic,4050.msg23923.html )

Overall, he says that the 4.0 rules are ideal for a new player to first start, but as they are the rulebook quickly becomes non-viable and he switched to 3.0.  He suggested that the 4.0 rulebook contain references to the 3.0 rulebook.  For example, "For details, see page 35 of 3.0 rulebook."

Rule book 4.0 is insufficient to learn the game as it does not have most of the details. rule book 3.0 is still the way to go despite it's length. I would say 4.0 give a good overview, but it's just a introduction. many thanks still for the effort of the creator, but 3.0 is now my reference book.

The main thing about the 4.0 rulebook is that when I need technical details such as "who should this unit FR this turn?" i just find a word desciption of FR is flexible, and you just pick up the units and place it together. compared it to version 3 which says: for FR to happen, there is the following 6 criteria 1)... 2)... etc.

i must say however that i did not read the 3.0 rules from top to bottom. because it does not make any sense to someone who has never played a game. it list everything like a lawyer contract and just does not gel together.

where as for version 4, i see the big picture. it tells me that every turn my units move according to standing order. it will usually move straight or simple turn. and that, i can understand perfectly. I went like" AH! so i as the general give command to the captain, and the captain follow my order precisely to the best of their ability! intuitive!"

but when the situation comes such as the hydra facing no one in the front arc, there's no proper solution in the version 4.

may be u can add the detailed criteria as an reference to the version 4.

something like "For more technical details, refer to page 40

"

[kidbrock9]

I don't know if this is a proposed change or a typo, but page 19 states that being in the yellow and red give (0) -1/0, and (0) -2/0 respectively instead of the -1 and -2 dice.

[Kevin]

That's definitely a typo.  Good eye!

[Rostov73]

Whats the latest on version 4.0 of the rules?

From what I have read, a newbie needs to read 4.0 for clear explanantions of the basics, then read 3.0 for the details and deeper gameplay.  

Is this still correct?

[BubblePig]

UvulaBob's rules rewrite is not really v4.0. If you look at the cover it says "v4.0?" I haven't heard anything about it for many months now. There have been quite a few errata and clarifications since then, so I am unsure whether UvulaBob's rules rewrite (v4.0?) would be more confusing than helpful at this point, but it is probably still a decent walkthrough of basic concepts. I would definitely use v3.0 and the card and rules errata document moving forward until a new official rulebook (which is supposed to be v3.1 I think) gets published. I found it helpful to print both of those up on 8.5"x11" paper to make them easier to page through than the rulebook included in the Dark Elf set which was already twice the page area of the early rulebooks.

[gull2112]

I think, since we are dealing with PDF's here. We should have a learning version (which would be included with the new decks) and an "Official" version which would contain all the legalese and clarifications which would be a pdf. People could print it, or access it on their notebooks, to refer to while playing.