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

FAQ rules inclusion - Countercharge
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=10763		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Ginger [ Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:14 am ]
Post subject:  FAQ rules inclusion - Countercharge
This FAQ can be removed if we reword the relevant section accordingly:- Q: If the closest enemy unit is already engaged (it has two units in base-to-base contact with it) do I still need to Counter-charge that unit or can I Counter-charge another enemy unit?
A: If the closest enemy is already fully engaged, you may carry on the counter charge and try to contact the next closest enemy unit. The relevant section should now read A unit must use its counter charge move to move directly towards the closest enemy unit that does not have two defenders in contact with it. It may move into base contact if close enough, provided the enemy is not already in contact with two defending units. Units can choose not to counter charge if they wish, but if they do counter charge they must head towards the nearest unengaged enemy.
Author:  Markconz [ Mon Oct 15, 2007 12:02 pm ]
Post subject:  FAQ rules inclusion - Countercharge
I'm 100% in favour of actually updating the rules so that the FAQ can be substantially trimmed down. I would like to hear other peoples views on this process.
Author:  Chroma [ Mon Oct 15, 2007 1:20 pm ]
Post subject:  FAQ rules inclusion - Countercharge

(Markconz @ Oct. 15 2007,12:02)
QUOTE
I'm 100% in favour of actually updating the rules so that the FAQ can be substantially trimmed down. I would like to hear other peoples views on this process.

I'm 100% for "inclusion" in the rules to trim the FAQ.
Author:  semajnollissor [ Mon Oct 15, 2007 1:50 pm ]
Post subject:  FAQ rules inclusion - Countercharge

(Ginger @ Oct. 15 2007,05:14)
QUOTE
... A unit must use its counter charge move to move directly towards the closest enemy unit that does not have two defenders in contact with it, or twice as many defenders as starting DC if unit is a WE. It may move into...

What about WEs? Can we make up a term here that describes have twice as many enemy units in base contact as the player's unit has DC, like "Fully Engaged" or something?
Author:  Markconz [ Mon Oct 15, 2007 2:24 pm ]
Post subject:  FAQ rules inclusion - Countercharge
From my own point of view, I've considered the size of the FAQ, and the inherent difficulty that will be involved in engineering good technically precise changes to relevant rules. I think it is probably quite a massive (though inherently worthwhile) endeavor. The more people who are able to contribute towards development and proofing of wording changes the better.

I was thinking that ideally it might perhaps involve a wiki (or a wiki for each section) - containing each FAQ item, a proposed wording change, and a status (no proposal, experimental proposal, approved proposal) of proposed wording changes.

Needless to say this would be quite an effort, but if this is worth doing it is probably worth doing right.

Thoughts?
Author:  Markconz [ Tue Oct 16, 2007 3:01 pm ]
Post subject:  FAQ rules inclusion - Countercharge
So no one else would be keen on starting and directing a wiki effort?
I was kind of hoping someone would be prepared to direct such an effort? ie Hena you mentioned you'd be up for 'cataloging everything?' :;):

I'd do it, but honestly just updating the rules with mods from other people is enough work right now. I have already received some feedback from people on ideas for FAQ incorporation, but ideally an open process with as many editors as possible would be best I think. More eyes to pick up oversights and mistakes.

Is a wiki idea just overkill perhaps?
Author:  Ginger [ Tue Oct 16, 2007 3:09 pm ]
Post subject:  FAQ rules inclusion - Countercharge
I can do some of the work here, but would probably prefer to use this forum rather than a "Wiki" (partly because I am less familiar).

Also, I would suggest a slightly simpler process because most of the FAQs are self explanatory, so the only requirement is to provide acceptable wording - which is a lot easier to do.
Author:  Dave [ Tue Oct 16, 2007 3:38 pm ]
Post subject:  FAQ rules inclusion - Countercharge

(Markconz @ Oct. 16 2007,10:01)
QUOTE
So no one else would be keen on starting and directing a wiki effort?

...

Is a wiki idea just overkill perhaps?

You gotta give other people more than a day to respond :-P.

I like the idea, and this is something, I think, that can coincide with the general rules review process.  If people are open to the idea I could start setting it up on the TC's wiki.

I also don't think it's overkill, for iterative development we need something that can track changes and be publically accessible to all Epic players. The wiki would be the right tool for this.
Author:  Dwarf Supreme [ Tue Oct 16, 2007 3:47 pm ]
Post subject:  FAQ rules inclusion - Countercharge
I like the idea also. Since we're in the process of revising/updating rules anyway, I would much prefer having rules rewritten to incorporate FAQs.
Author:  CyberShadow [ Tue Oct 16, 2007 10:04 pm ]
Post subject:  FAQ rules inclusion - Countercharge
I think that it would be good to have a 'wiki team' for this, as it may be too much work for a single person to take on.

When this is established, I will co-ordinate with the wiki team and arrange a 'static site' as a one stop shop for players who want to play a game with balanced and relatively stable rules.

(I like the sound of being the Gatekeep of Armageddon!  :D  Especially if Sigourney Weaver is the Keymaster.)
Author:  Markconz [ Wed Oct 17, 2007 3:56 am ]
Post subject:  FAQ rules inclusion - Countercharge
Ok cool sounds like we have some volunteers and a plan then. :)

One further thing, GW has a policy that FAQ's sometimes are not so much 'things we missed out of the rules' (ie errata) but things best left out to avoid cluttering them up. Ie they think from the perspective of new players learning the rules - do they need to know of every possible exception and weird situation, or are some of them better left in a supplemental FAQ?  I'm not saying that this approach is right or wrong but perhaps it is worth considering. We're veteran players, how do things look from the point of view of new players? An approach to think about rather than making quick judgments about immediately perhaps, and on a case by case basis.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/