Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
WARNING: THIS IS JUST A NITPICK...
Man, is it me, or is GW in the habit of simply NOT making too much sense when they write rules?
Just a nitpick, but I'm in the communications industry and for us every bit of grammar counts - all the time. Further, every bit of formatting counts. If you say there are three things, then ONLY list three things.
This is a RULE BOOK, man. The rules should be simple, consistent and clear.
Now, I get it that this is a big 'tome' and there are times when there could be little typos here and there, but here I am reading the new 5th ed. and it's like, GW is at it again with the bad grammar and nuanced writing style.
I just like rules to be, well, RULES, not 'suggestions'. They seem to be so careless when they write to the point of it being a bit irritating.
Pg. 13. Check out terrain types. Now, they start off with 3 (three) distinct terrain types in bullet points. Then, in the guidelines below it, there are 4 (four) terrain types - the fourth is 'buildings' described using an incomplete sentence.
Is it me, or is this an English idiomatic writing style, or is this just typical GW shenanigans?
Why add the fourth category of buildings right after the first three bullet points? UGH!
And this is rampant all over the codexes and the rulebooks!
Last edited by Wolfsheim242; July 13th, 2008 at 02:35. Reason: fixed a sentence.
The 5th Edition Rulebook was written in chief by an Italian and various middle aged British men.
Therefore we can only assume that they were drunk.
"No dumb bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. You win a war by making the other dumb bastard die for his country." General George S. Patton, Jr.
Try reading it inebriated.
I don't know about the writers being drunk but the proof readers seem thin on the ground. Where there are three new mission types we have a glaring copy and paste error in the second one. Still what do you expect for 30 quid...
I only wish that the codices would cross reference the USR in the BRB and others. For example. HQ selection follows retinue rules in BRB pg. xxx. Or Gaunt has Fearless as written (BRB pg. xxx) It would be nice to be able to just flip over to those pages in a jiffy if needed.
Also wouldn't this mean that doing this would limit the typical mistakes that are made when wordings are slightly different from codex to codex regarding USR and such. It forces the writters to self check in a way.
Where the heck did all them guardsmen come from?
Great Wolf! Is that the howl of the 13th?
The name refers to facial hair, not playing style.Originally Posted by A news vendor's stand, London, June 1940
I just hope that the new IG codex is written a bit better and more accurately with little to NO grey areas. I understand that GW wants the rules to be more like 'guides', but guides still need to be pretty straightforward.
That's my only quip with GW. And honestly, as a counterpoint, it's not that big a deal because it lends itself to interesting debate and interpretation.
I guess I'm simply looking for a bit of clarity and organization from these codexes and rulebooks. I know that there are a lot of nuances to keep in mind, but if they need more 'eyes on the words' to help the rules gel better and make more sense, then they should hire some freelancers and get the job done correctly.
I have a feeling that the new IG codex will have some grey areas too. What I'm a stickler about is consistency. If you list three things, discuss THOSE three things!
If you make a rule for something, say EXACTLY what that rule is, how it works and provide 1-2 real life examples of how the rule plays out. Pretty straightforward for rules, I'd say - right? When I read the current codex, I always get the feeling that things are slightly - broken.
Broken might be a bit too powerful, but accurate. As far as I'm concerned, the codex is only ready to hit the presses if and when it is 'perfect'. That means: correct grammar, clear rules, clear rule usage, clear examples, clear examples that relate to discussed rules. And the thing is, I KNOW it can be done because I work in an industry where it's done EVERY DAY to perfection. It's just not getting done at GW. Which begs the question - why?
As far as content goes, things change, so FAQs can address those. But as far as me being a nitpicker, it's all about clarity and consistency.
Last edited by Wolfsheim242; July 25th, 2008 at 15:17. Reason: formatting