Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

thoughts on the 2012 Compendium
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=22219		 Page 1 of 6
Author:  Dave [ Fri Jan 06, 2012 6:38 pm ]
Post subject:  thoughts on the 2012 Compendium
So while things are still fresh in people's heads let's talk about a few things.

The number one thing that bothers me is all the duplication. Having a Tactical Marine line in every SM reference sheet for example adds a lot of length and a lot of room for errors. Once more it's a pain to update a unit in a bunch of ref sheets. What do people think about these solutions:

1) Go the Speed Freek/White Scar route and only have the unique units listed in the variant list's ref sheet. So a player would need to use the core lists ref sheet and the variant list add-on ref sheet.

2) Have one master ref sheet for every race with everything on it (like I did for Tyranids).

Next, would people prefer a landscape ref sheet as opposed to a portrait?

Finally, would it be helpful to break this thing up into 3 separate compendium (Approved, Developmental, Experimental)? People playing in a tourney with only approved lists could then just grab only what they'd need. Also, it would us to distribute the work load between three people without fear of work being lost.

What else would people want to see for next year? I'm looking more for presentation and what not, not typo catching at this point.
Author:  zombocom [ Fri Jan 06, 2012 6:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: thoughts on the 2012 Compendium
Personally I like it exactly as it is; people only need to print out two pages next to each other to have everything they need to take along for a game, and that's a very good thing.
Author:  Dave [ Fri Jan 06, 2012 6:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: thoughts on the 2012 Compendium
It that's the only thing this was needed for then I don't see why we bothered putting it together. People could have done that by just printing out the list itself rather than downloading the whole compendium. Printing out just the approved/dev/exp lists isn't as simple as just clicking a button right now. I think that would be useful though.
Author:  Vaaish [ Fri Jan 06, 2012 6:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: thoughts on the 2012 Compendium
I would also say keep the core separate with the unique on the variant ref sheet. Keeps from cluttering things for people who use the core sheet and lets you easily access any info from the variant units of the list you are using without having to scan through everything but just taking the relavant add on sheet for the variant list you are using.

I would say landscaped reference sheets. It seems a better use of the space to keep entries from being cramped.
Author:  Apocolocyntosis [ Fri Jan 06, 2012 6:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: thoughts on the 2012 Compendium
Dave wrote:
I'm looking more for presentation and what not, not typo catching at this point.


Can we get a confirmation of what the current formatting actually IS before commenting on it please?

As the pdf draft 2012 we have been shown does not seem to match how the author says it is formatted, eg: the pdf is US Letter size, author says it is A4 his end, pdf has 5.5pt type in places, again author says smallest is 6pt. Negative tracking on the type etc.

No point discussing details of layout until the above etc are known at both ends, as we are talking about differnt things :p although i assume it is just a pdf printer mishap

(not that all of my comments relate to small details, but still, i don't want to be discussing a different document)
Author:  zombocom [ Fri Jan 06, 2012 6:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: thoughts on the 2012 Compendium
Dave wrote:
It that's the only thing this was needed for then I don't see why we bothered putting it together.


The entire point of the compendium is to make it easy for players not used to Taccomms' structure to be able to find and use the latest stable lists as easily as possible. For that reason I prefer the system currently in place, as it means you don't have to constantly flip back and forward between lists to get stats.

Why is the duplication a problem, when it leads to more clarity?
Author:  nealhunt [ Fri Jan 06, 2012 6:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: thoughts on the 2012 Compendium
Dave wrote:
It that's the only thing this was needed for then I don't see why we bothered putting it together.

It has a lot of value beyond that.

However, with respect to this particular issue, being able to open it up and look at ~2 pages for an army list, without having to sort through a bunch of extraneous detail is highly useful. What Zombo describes is no different than someone with an electronic cookbook who prints out a page to take into the kitchen for convenience. It's quick, easy and functional.

I think in terms of utility it is an improvement over the way Chroma originally laid it out.
Author:  Spectrar Ghost [ Fri Jan 06, 2012 7:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: thoughts on the 2012 Compendium
I'm also perfectly happy with the current structure - duplication and landscape Refs.

At this point I can go to the doc, print out the racial rules, print two to three pages for the list and referance sheets, and have just about any list in the NetEA stable. Playtest changes will inevitably outdate some lists in the coming year, but that's okay. The changes can be referenced against the Compendium list for clarity, adding at most a page or two of errata-style changes fot those who don't want to print the list again.
Author:  Dave [ Fri Jan 06, 2012 7:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: thoughts on the 2012 Compendium
zombocom wrote:
The entire point of the compendium is to make it easy for players not used to Taccomms' structure to be able to find and use the latest stable lists as easily as possible.


Right, which is why I'm arguing that having an Approved Compendium, A Developmental Compendium and an Experimental Compendium would be more useful to people than everything in one file, where they'd have to print out page ranges to get the latest stable lists.

Quote:
Why is the duplication a problem, when it leads to more clarity?


Like I said above, it introduces the chance for more errors. If unit X is changed you have to make sure all references to it change. Rather than just changing it in one place.

Apocolocyntosis wrote:
Can we get a confirmation of what the current formatting actually IS before commenting on it please?


More than likely it was A4 for Dobbsy do to how Office was setup for him, and Letter because of how it was setup for me.
Author:  Dave [ Fri Jan 06, 2012 7:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: thoughts on the 2012 Compendium
I used latex once, it wasn't a fun experience...
Author:  fredmans [ Fri Jan 06, 2012 7:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: thoughts on the 2012 Compendium
I think zombocom and neilhunt has good arguments for the current draft layout. No doubt that would be much easier for new players, too, which is a real boon.

As for the other question, I see only the need for two versions. Approved-only, and Every-list. The approved-only version would be great for tournament organizers.

/Fredmans
Author:  zombocom [ Fri Jan 06, 2012 8:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: thoughts on the 2012 Compendium
I'd agree that a separate tournament pack including only the approved lists (and other tournament related bits) would be a good idea, but don't strip the approved lists out of the compendium in the process.
Author:  Apocolocyntosis [ Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: thoughts on the 2012 Compendium
The two most important things for me:
• The type is too small. I don’t care if it is 6pt or 5.5pt, it is too small. It does not need to be this small, there is plenty of space.
• The type is negatively tracked in the pdf. I have shown this in the other thread, it is the same in the new pdf. I don’t care how or why it got there but it is unnecessary, harms the readability of the text and should go.
If for some unimaginable reason the type must be this small, change the typeface. I know GW used Garamond, but they did not put it through such abuse (5.5pt negative tracked), use a typeface with enhanced legibility at small sizes.

Other stuff
• Headers should be placed consistently and not swap between landscape and portrait.
• Page numbers are missing from landscape pages – why care? Because the pdf document page numbers do not match the page numbers in the index, so when i navigate via page number i NEED to be able to compare document page number to pdf page number.
• Formatting of bullet points is inconsistent, compare pdf p3 to p4.
• Multiplication signs and dashes, if you don’t mind i’m happy with that, but at least be consistent ;)
• Contents page could be prodded a bit, but it's the least of the document's troubles currently.
• 1 document or split? Personally I’d split by race and have a mega-compendium, make both available, no big deal and everyone is happy, seems a non-issue given you can split the electronic doc up and repack at no cost.

Is this document designed for print or screen? Are you envisaging people just printing off odd pages on draft, or spending many monies getting it full colour laser printed and bound? Im afraid the answer is probably yes to everything.
 Landscape pages for references primarily bother me if many people will print and bind this document, as they will have to swivel it around every other page. In all other outcomes it is less of an issue.

I am probably* happy to poke the document for some formatting if needed if it is available in a .doc/.docx/.rtf etc compatible format or InDesign.

* disclaimer in-case none of it uses styles etc
Page 1 of 6 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/