Kyrt wrote:
Basically when someone reads a document they don't know what went in to writing it, and lack the context of this discussion to know that you have worked hard to stick to the official rules.
I see what you mean, and I tried to cover this at
https://thehobby.zone/resources/ea-rules-revamp/Content/Introduction/AboutThisPublication.htm. Ultimately, the proof is in the pudding, as they say.
I appreciate the 'trust and authority' issue but I'm not sure there is much I can do about that beyond doing my best to be as open and as consistent as I can be, and taking feedback on board.
Of course, as you allude, I don't actually have to bother, since it is really no skin off my nose if no-one outside my group uses EA Rules Revamp. But I choose to engage like this because:
- it seems churlish not to share the fruits of my efforts
- it seems like a nice way to give back to the community and just maybe encourage a few more new players into the game, which feels good
- I'm not the all-knowing oracle and while I can have a good go at most things it helps to have other viewpoints that may improve the project in ways I wouldn't have thought of
Kyrt wrote:
House rules and personal interpretations have a very low uptake rate, due to the aforementioned authority issue and also a bit of 'not invented here' syndrome.
I can believe that. However, for me the overriding factor is that I personally found/find it very frustrating when my opponent and I ran across a gap that caused us to pause mid-game and spend 10 minutes discussing how we thought we should resolve it in the 'best and most consistent' way (not just in the moment, but also for future reference).
I would've loved to have a workable suggestion to get on with, right there where we needed it, even if we decided to do it a different way later.
So really, I like to have these additions to speed the game along where we'd otherwise stall and say "oh, what did we decide last time, can you remember?"... so short of some 'aha!' moment that makes me change my mind, this is how it'll be. Don't like it? Skip over it, no harm done — it's why I used asides instead of tampering directly with the rules as I could've done if I were thinking only of my group. This is indeed the compromise.
Kyrt wrote:
In any case it would be good to minimise them to where they are actually necessary.
I'm inclined to agree since it won't be a big hardship not to include actual 'house rules' and we're really talking about something else here. Though of course we won't all agree on what is or isn't 'necessary' so ultimately it'll still come down to my preference of course. :-D Though as you can see, I do strive to take feedback on board and no decision is irreversible.
Kyrt wrote:
IMO the one about sniper actually is not necessary. It is really only because of this thread that I think you felt it necessary to add it, but in reality the way to play it is actually defined in the rules and those rules are not ambiguous.
Mostly this was why I added it, yes. The very fact we get into conversations like this could be proof that these things aren't necessarily as unambiguous as you think... except that in this instance I think I may now finally see what you chaps are getting at... and where my brain went wrong :-D
I must've gotten this one back to front in my head somewhere (hey, I'm only human, it'd be amazing if I didn't do this somewhere!). For some reason, I had it in my mind that you have to choose your targets for Sniper attacks
before you roll to hit. Ergo, logic dictates that you'd have to 'allocate attacks' before you have any actual hits to allocate. (It isn't unusual for this sort of mixup to happen in technical writing, and for me to have to unpick it and tidy up the terminology and/or fix the underlying logic.)
However, I see now that you just roll to hit with all your Sniper units and
then pick the targets (allocate) for any Sniper hits you get (subject to the usual targeting rules — line of fire, etcetera) either before or after the target player has allocated the normal hits in the usual way. This makes sense and doesn't imply 'allocating attacks', and it makes Sniper even more vicious and flexible than I thought. With this turnaround, have I finally got it right?!
I still don't see how there would ever be any benefit for the attacker to allocate Sniper hits
before the target player allocates regular hits, as he might as well wait until he has the full information about where the normal hits are allocated so he can 'optimise' use of the Sniper hits?