posted by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
damerell at 04:00pm on 09/10/2011
damerell at 04:00pm on 09/10/2011We've been playing Close Action (a game of tactical naval combat in the Age of Sail, about which more later) recently, and being the kind of person I am, I've been through the entire rulebook looking for inconsistences and unanswered questions, and there are actually a lot.
The semi-official contact method is a Yahoo group, but of course I loathe Yahoo groups, so I started with the BoardGameGeek. Little joy there, so I reposted to the Yahoo group, only to find that the first post from the 'Geek had been reposted there, which was unfortunate because I'd revised it for the repost.
There seems to be a semi-official "answer guy", but with three difficulties:
1) The thing where someone skims your question and answers a similar-sounding question that they happen to know the answer to, even though the answer to that question is obvious to any idiot. In this case, even after one very carefully explains which question one is actually asking with a specific case that exhibits the actual problem in question, they go back and answer the other question again, with an undertone of "why don't you understand the answer or the obviously clear rules".
2) This exchange: "Rule A says X; rule B says not-X". "Rule B says not-X". Now I don't know - given point 1) - if that means either "Yes, rule A is in error", or "I didn't read the question properly."
3) A general tendency to interpret any search for inconsistencies as a deep personal affront. Normally when you find inconsistencies in a game system the reaction ranges from, eg, "good catch" and fix it in the Living Rules to grudging acceptance and fix it in the next printing. As such this reaction is a bit abnormal.
A suspicion overtook me, and sure enough - in the back of the rulebook this guy is down for "proofreading for content, grammar, and consistency". This does kind of explain it, but really, Mr Grumpy, if I can read the rulebook three times and find contradictions you missed while being the proofreader for the project, that is not my fault.
The semi-official contact method is a Yahoo group, but of course I loathe Yahoo groups, so I started with the BoardGameGeek. Little joy there, so I reposted to the Yahoo group, only to find that the first post from the 'Geek had been reposted there, which was unfortunate because I'd revised it for the repost.
There seems to be a semi-official "answer guy", but with three difficulties:
1) The thing where someone skims your question and answers a similar-sounding question that they happen to know the answer to, even though the answer to that question is obvious to any idiot. In this case, even after one very carefully explains which question one is actually asking with a specific case that exhibits the actual problem in question, they go back and answer the other question again, with an undertone of "why don't you understand the answer or the obviously clear rules".
2) This exchange: "Rule A says X; rule B says not-X". "Rule B says not-X". Now I don't know - given point 1) - if that means either "Yes, rule A is in error", or "I didn't read the question properly."
3) A general tendency to interpret any search for inconsistencies as a deep personal affront. Normally when you find inconsistencies in a game system the reaction ranges from, eg, "good catch" and fix it in the Living Rules to grudging acceptance and fix it in the next printing. As such this reaction is a bit abnormal.
A suspicion overtook me, and sure enough - in the back of the rulebook this guy is down for "proofreading for content, grammar, and consistency". This does kind of explain it, but really, Mr Grumpy, if I can read the rulebook three times and find contradictions you missed while being the proofreader for the project, that is not my fault.
(no subject)