PDA

View Full Version : An attempt to try and clarify ambiguous rules



Undercover genius
27-11-2007, 00:38
I just had an idea come to mind; has anyone ever tried reading the GW rulebook from a different language to try and get a better grasp of the intent of the rules for a specific situation? It might actually help to clarify certain situations if the words in the second language have a more defined meaning.

catbarf
27-11-2007, 00:47
The books in other languages often have different rules altogether. Bad idea.

Rikens
27-11-2007, 00:51
Actually I've thought of re-writing the rulebook and adding the formal necessities for objective interpretation (a glossary, an explicit structure and internal reference system, a deductive apparatus, a tree-diagram of the rule book's contents, etc). I've also noticed that the rules accompanied by pictures in the rule-books rarely come up for discussion, so it would also be useful to not only re-write the text of the rules to conform with high standards of technical writing, but to add diagrams for each rule.

marv335
27-11-2007, 00:52
the rules were written in english though.
anything in another book written in another language that differs is likely to be translation error.

Greater Daemon of Cheese
27-11-2007, 03:03
read it in English and German .... BAD idea. So confused now :wtf:

bdo
27-11-2007, 04:49
i live in germany, so i get to read the german books... after a while you notice some confusing things, for example that the dark angels apothecary doesnīt have to be in 6 inch distance to use his save-failed?-succed-anyway-thingy... now i try to get an english version of everything i have, sometimes its just ridiculous what kind of typos, or just errors come with a translation.

itīs also funny that the word for "assault" is "angreifen" in the german ruleset, which is basically a very generall word for "to attack". took a while till i figured my lictor could not move, just assault after arriving on the table....

whenever you can, try to get english versions of your books... they may not be perfect in their exact wording, but you can be sure that nothing is just dropped out or changed somewhere....

Hellebore
27-11-2007, 04:53
Actually I've thought of re-writing the rulebook and adding the formal necessities for objective interpretation (a glossary, an explicit structure and internal reference system, a deductive apparatus, a tree-diagram of the rule book's contents, etc). I've also noticed that the rules accompanied by pictures in the rule-books rarely come up for discussion, so it would also be useful to not only re-write the text of the rules to conform with high standards of technical writing, but to add diagrams for each rule.

Which would chop out 3/4 of their customer base - not everyone is fluent in technical writing and the linguistic nuances required.

They can't write it at too high a level, because then only lawyers and sad gits like you and me would play it. :p


Hellebore

VanHel
27-11-2007, 05:54
I usually do a roll off with a die, and if they go against it I use the red pain sticks that come with the boxsets to enforce the ruling!

MuttMan
27-11-2007, 07:28
Gonna ask a question here rather then make a new thread for it.

Sentinels deep striking with Drop Troops Doctrine, they count as moving how far when they land? 6"? 12"? Makes a big difference if I can shoot them when they land, otherwise they will be out of my apoc force.

bosstroll
27-11-2007, 07:47
Sentinels are normal walkers, they're only alowed to move 6" a turn (+6" assault if your feeling lucky)

Micro
27-11-2007, 09:33
hence, they are allowed to shoot. however, like all units that have deepstriked, they cannot attack.

Maharajah
27-11-2007, 11:47
hence, they are allowed to shoot. however, like all units that have deepstriked, they cannot attack.
So, on a bit of a tangent, what the heck is the canonical past tense of "deep strike"? Deep struck? Deep striked? No matter what you say it sounds dumb.

dodgethis
27-11-2007, 13:56
Dumbstruck, more like.

Bunnahabhain
27-11-2007, 14:05
Past tense of the verb to strike is struck, so, it will be deep-struck.

A useful and less scarey way to clarify the rulebook would be a properly defined glossary, and the writers only to use specific term as defined in the glossary ( eg Instant death) if they actually mean it. It's not that hard!

Tree diagrams for each phase wouldn't hurt though. Good way to ensure you get each bit in the right order, easy way to factor in odd things like psycic powers, and would generally help eliminate many uncertanties.

Rikens
27-11-2007, 19:13
Which would chop out 3/4 of their customer base - not everyone is fluent in technical writing and the linguistic nuances required.

They can't write it at too high a level, because then only lawyers and sad gits like you and me would play it. I disagree. There's no such thing as "too high a level", particularly if we deploy Simplified English. The fabled weak literacy skills of so many Warhammer fans is only a problem if it's catered to. If I could remember it I would quote Bart Simpson on the matter, from the episode where Homer goes to work for a super-villain and Bart is sent to remedial class. Regardless good technical writing does not require expertise to read it. Quite the contrary, good technical writing makes reading comprehension easier for sub-literate geeks like engineers, computer monkeys, and gaming nerds. Also you should have noticed that I strongly recommended adding more pictures and diagrams.

lanrak
27-11-2007, 20:47
Hi all.
I have to agree with Rikens.
I find it odd that some of the 'complex and detailed ' historical war games I play ,have rule sets that are infinatly easier to understand,compared to some of the the 'marketing pamphlets' GW pass off as rules.

Having a clearly defined and concise glossary of terms makes any information easier to understand.

But GW PLC are in the buisness of 'selling toy soldiers to kiddies'.

They have litle interest in games development, game play-/-rules issues. (Despite the best efforts of the studio staff.)

Hellebore
27-11-2007, 23:19
I disagree. There's no such thing as "too high a level", particularly if we deploy Simplified English. The fabled weak literacy skills of so many Warhammer fans is only a problem if it's catered to. If I could remember it I would quote Bart Simpson on the matter, from the episode where Homer goes to work for a super-villain and Bart is sent to remedial class. Regardless good technical writing does not require expertise to read it. Quite the contrary, good technical writing makes reading comprehension easier for sub-literate geeks like engineers, computer monkeys, and gaming nerds. Also you should have noticed that I strongly recommended adding more pictures and diagrams.

It's got nothing to do with the 'fabled' weak literacy skills of warhammer fans, and EVERYTHING to do with the general low literacy ability of many people these days in the western world.

I'm not picking on warhammer fans specifically, but in order to maximise profits you must sell to the lowest common denominator in your target audience.

I'd like to see what you think would be clearer, more concise, and yet simpler to read for someone without a large vocabulary.

Hellebore

Rikens
28-11-2007, 19:55
It's got nothing to do with the 'fabled' weak literacy skills of warhammer fans, and EVERYTHING to do with the general low literacy ability of many people these days in the western world. The world's always been that way, I'm afraid. Although Warhammer fans are a proper subset of the Western World, they are the subset that seems to esteem itself on its intellectual skills. I've taught in Universities and I've rarely heard discussion as pretentious and intellectually over-weening as one over-hears in a GW store. For people who pride themselves on being so clever the average reading level seems to average out somewhere around middle school, if they've bothered to read the rules at all! Hence why I recommend good technical writing and lots of pictures, something suitably 'easy-reading' so that new players aren't daunted by the misleading thickness of the rule-books. Instead of telling the players: "Hey, you know you're smart cookies, you figure it out." say to them: "Maybe you're the next Shakespeare, maybe you're not, but if you can't read you can learn how by looking at these pictures!"


I'm not picking on warhammer fans specifically, but in order to maximise profits you must sell to the lowest common denominator in your target audience. I take it you're not in business? Maybe you are, but it's one of those misleading cliches that go around, like "The Customer is Always Right" - a nice slogan but no way to run a profitable business and certainly no way to run a corporation. In order to maximize profits you need to find a sweet-spot between turn-over, marketing, production, borrowing, sales, payroll, overheads, and other things besides (particularly for a vertically integrated business like GW).


I'd like to see what you think would be clearer, more concise, and yet simpler to read for someone without a large vocabulary. I'd certainly like to show you. It certainly benefits someone to learn that clarity and concision are not only non-exclusive with a large vocabulary, but often best achieved without such a cumbersome instrument. What would you like to see as demonstration?

And yes, I'm aware of the irony of my explanation... ;)

catbarf
28-11-2007, 20:44
The game systems are marketed towards children/young teens. They MUST use simple wording or the kids with the typical television-induced hyperactivity will drop the book and return to the Xbox.

chromedog
28-11-2007, 20:53
Precisely.

My club has this problem. Several of the kids would rather lug their xbox360s, cables, power supplies, and portable tv in, than paint their models or even game with them.
The game you just plug in and turn on - instant gratification.

To be fair, though, All non-computer gaming has this issue now. How do you get people interested in an pen/paper rpg - when they can just play WoW? Or Elder Scrolls?

We have a couple of kids who got into 40k by playing DoW, and complain every time something in the game doesn't match their expectations (from DoW).

catbarf
28-11-2007, 22:39
To be fair, though, All non-computer gaming has this issue now. How do you get people interested in an pen/paper rpg - when they can just play WoW? Or Elder Scrolls?

It's the social aspect. You need to have people who would rather have the open-ended, non-constrained form of a pen-and-paper game (or, in this case, a miniatures game) as well as the human interaction.

But regardless, I don't think children are really suited to either pen-and-paper games or miniatures.

Vet.Sister
29-11-2007, 00:24
It certainly benefits someone to learn that clarity and concision are not only non-exclusive with a large vocabulary, but often best achieved without such a cumbersome instrument. What would you like to see as demonstration?



OH! ohhh! pick me!!! pick ME!!!
Please define the term "model" as used by GW rule set, so that it's unambiguous and simple to understand. Please cover the difference between Infantry, Tanks and Monstrous Creatures, etc, etc.....

Thank You in advance!:)

Maharajah
29-11-2007, 06:47
One incredibly simple thing that GW could do, stolen directly from the authors of the internet RFC series of standards, is define standard interpretations for words like MAY, MUST, CAN, MUST NOT and so forth, and then actually use them. GW has a bad habit of writing a rule in such a way as to make it unclear whether the rule is optional or mandatory.

Having also come to GW games from more "technical" games such as Advanced Third Reich and World In Flames, it is obvious that GW writes rules which tell stories and anecdotes rather than define rules. Very annoying.

I have to agree with Rikens that better writing would actually make their products more understandable to a younger audience.

logosloki
29-11-2007, 07:24
I'd go with a good glossary and pictures. GW would do better if it used same either bold or italics on specific function words.


A good example of an easy reading sentence:
"the unit may deep-strike if the mission allows it"

the glossary would define deep-strike and mission. sort of like how Magic the gathering works I suppose. Also may and if would always be the same.

Because if I read it right under fearless I don't have to fall back (it says "never have to fallback") but on the same sentence it says fearless models always pass morale checks.......

although on an aside why does a fearless character lose fearless when it joins a non-fearless unit? shouldn't the fearless embolden the weak?