1. We certainly expect and intend that the Warbook will include all of the rules and rulings and clarifications and whatever else there is to include. We did that with the Master SFB rulebook, include everything from the staff.

2. What's the point of doing this if we're not going to do it right? That said, an EXCELLENT book now is better than a theoretically perfect book that will never happen. Perfection is impossible. No matter how much work we do or don't do, someone will find a typo five minutes after release. We'll keep track of it and fix it on the next revision. If we do this right and keep the revision list to actual problems not one player's wet dreams, there will be revisions far more frequently.

3. Don't panic, but there is a possibility that circumstances may require us to set the warbook aside and do something else first.

4. I want the warbook to END and FINISH the rules arguments and debates and so forth. I want to never again have to deal with an appeal that comes up through Chuck and Mike. On the other hand, if this turns into a witch hunt of "every rule every player ever wanted to change" then it obviously won't ever get finished.

5. The current plan is to get the non-updated books updated, sell a PDF early bird copy, then fix whatever people find and do a new print release copy which means auto-updated PDFs.

6. I do not anticipate any major rewrite or rules changes. I do not anticipate "rewording" anything unless there is a specific issue raised about something. In cases where there are pieces of rules in three different rule numbers (e.g., Auxes, Tug missions), we can combine them all in one or all three places but leave the existing rules in place in the other places.
I don't plan to write or insert examples unless somebody makes a specific case that one is needed; you cannot expect me to know by ESP those cases where you think somebody other than yourself might someday be confused. To that end, if you think there should be an example somewhere, so state in this topic and state the rule number, what the example would cover, and why you think it's so darn necessary. If you think a rule should be reworded, state the number and why and propose a new wording. Do not do more than two or three of those before getting an answer. If you think of things that could be consolidated in one place (tug missions are the classic example) then list them here, including all relevant rule numbers and why you think it's needed and why cross-references aren't good enough. State such things clearly and lay out ALL of the implications and ramifications. Do not assume that I can instantly (or even with hours of study) comprehend what you're getting at.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, June 04, 2021 - 11:48 am: Edit

More general instructions:

1. If you think an example is needed, post in the topic for that product the rule number and why you think an example is needed and what you think the example should cover. If I thought an example was needed I already wrote it. A comment that "more examples are needed" is not helpful. It's just clutter and wasted electrons.

2. If you think a rule is "badly worded" or "could be clarified" then post in the topic for that product the rule number and why. If you even try to use this as a fishing expedition or witch hunt, you'll be sent to the booth. I have a very short fuze with people who pretend to not understand a rule so they can fish for a total rules change. For example, if the rule says "you have to have one big and one small escort" and your question is "I don't understand the rule, could it be clarified so it means you can have two big escorts" you're going to be Meeting Mister Tribble and you won't like it.

3. If you ever have a rules question or SIT question, send it through the Q&A files, not here, and it will be dealt with. If you don't get an answer as fast as you want, ask it THERE again. Do not ask it in a warbook file.

4. If you asked for a rules change and were turned down, it's probably better not to ask again. Certainly not in the Warbook topics.

5. Note that "treasure hunt" notes (e.g., "I suggest you check every use of the term 'at war' to see if this is 'involved in a war' or 'at a wartime economy' or 'technically at war but not really' or 'something involving big time wrestling' and fix it.") IS SIMPLY NOT HELPFUL. I already did the best I could without your help and I agree with you that it's not good enough. So give me specific instances you want me to check by rule number.

6. Personal insults (especially against ME) are not going to move this project forward.

7. I am really not interested in "proposed rules changes" for the warbook. This is not a witch hunt, and not a fishing trip. However, proposed changes to make the rule more clear (as long as more clear doesn't turn light escorts into heavy escorts) isn't a problem, nor is a proposed change when two rules contradict. However, "change one light escort and two other escorts to two escorts of any size" isn't going to avoid the delete key of death.

8. Based on almost 30 years of doing this game design gig, I'd say 1/3 of the questions are asked honestly, 1/3 by people who don't want to look it up or don't have their book, and 1/3 by those fishing for a rules change. Been that way for almost 30 years and I don't believe it suddenly changed in 2002 to 95% asked honestly.

9. It's NOT POSSIBLE for Steve Cole to go through every post in the Q&A file. And I'm not going to. I'm going to go through the Captain's Log files, since my staff tells me that's all that needs attention. They have ALREADY kicked out the rules fishing and other clutter. If there is something beyond the Captain's Log files which needs attention (something "unclear" or "bad dictionary" or whatever), it is the duty of those who are complaining to point it out. (And please use line item format, otherwise it's just a mess and I won't be able to tell if somebody asked the same question twice.) It takes you the same time to do report the problem correctly as it takes you to complain that I did it wrong. It is better to write a line item report than curse the designer.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, June 04, 2021 - 03:26 pm: Edit

At the end of the process we will re-flow the pages and decide what needs to be at the top of a column. I do that sometimes in the Stage Two or later drafts but there isn't much point since adding rulings, clarifications, and examples is going to mess that up anyway and we'll have to re-flow it. So if a major header is near the bottom of a column just ignore it for now.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 11:08 am: Edit

Now, let me be VERY clear on what is needed.

1. If you think an example is needed, post HERE the rule number and why you think an example is needed and what you think the example should cover.

2. If you think a rule is "badly worded" or "could be clarified" then post HERE the rule number and why. If you even try to use this as a fishing expedition or witch hunt, you'll be sent to the booth. I have a very short fuze with people who pretend to not understand a rule so they can fish for a total rules change. For example, if the rule says "you have to have one big and one small escort" and your question is "I don't understand the rule, could it be clarified so it means you can have two big escorts" you're going to be Meeting Mister Tribble and you won't like it.

3. If you ever have a rules question, send it through the Q&A files, not here, and it will be dealt with.

4. If you asked for a rules change and were turned down, it's probably better not to ask again. That Honor Duel crap has come up more than once, been studied and turned down every single time, and really did not (and does not) need to ever come up again.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, June 06, 2021 - 09:14 am: Edit

(xyz.123) UNCLEAR RULE WORDING. “Quote” the portion of rule that is unclear to you. BRIEFLY state why it is unclear to you. PROPOSE a new wording for the rule. BRIEFLY cite implications and ramifications of your proposed rewording. Your Name & Date.

(xyz.123) & (abc.321) POSSIBLE RULE CONTRADICTIONS. “Quote” the portion of rules that is unclear to you. BRIEFLY state why you think it is a contradiction to you. PROPOSE a new wording for the rule(s). BRIEFLY cite implications and ramifications of your proposed rewording. Your Name & Date.

(xyz.123) SUGGESTED CROSS REFERENCE. BRIEFLY state why you think a cross reference is needed. Suggest the specific cross reference placement in rule; example: “Add cross reference (abc.123) after second sentence.” Your Name & Date.

(xyz.123) SUGGESTED INDEX REFERENCE. BRIEFLY state why you think an index reference is needed. Suggest the specific index title for rule; example: “INDEX TITLE (xyz.123). Your Name & Date.

(xyz.123), (abc.321) & (qrs.789) POSSIBLE RULE CONSOLIDATIONS. BRIEFLY state why you think the rules need to be consolidated. PROPOSE how you would consolidate the rules. BRIEFLY cite implications and ramifications of your proposed rewording. Your Name & Date.

(xyz.123) SUGGESTED RULE EXAMPLE. BRIEFLY state why you think a rule example is needed. Suggest wording for the example. BRIEFLY cite implications and ramifications of your proposed example. Your Name & Date.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, June 06, 2021 - 09:14 am: Edit

(xyz.123) UNCLEAR RULE WORDING. “Quote” the portion of rule that is unclear to you. BRIEFLY state why it is unclear to you. PROPOSE a new wording for the rule. BRIEFLY cite implications and ramifications of your proposed rewording. Your Name & Date.

(xyz.123) & (abc.321) POSSIBLE RULE CONTRADICTIONS. “Quote” the portion of rules that is unclear to you. BRIEFLY state why you think it is a contradiction to you. PROPOSE a new wording for the rule(s). BRIEFLY cite implications and ramifications of your proposed rewording. Your Name & Date.

(xyz.123) SUGGESTED CROSS REFERENCE. BRIEFLY state why you think a cross reference is needed. Suggest the specific cross reference placement in rule; example: “Add cross reference (abc.123) after second sentence.” Your Name & Date.

(xyz.123) SUGGESTED INDEX REFERENCE. BRIEFLY state why you think an index reference is needed. Suggest the specific index title for rule; example: “INDEX TITLE (xyz.123). Your Name & Date.

(xyz.123), (abc.321) & (qrs.789) POSSIBLE RULE CONSOLIDATIONS. BRIEFLY state why you think the rules need to be consolidated. PROPOSE how you would consolidate the rules. BRIEFLY cite implications and ramifications of your proposed rewording. Your Name & Date.

(xyz.123) SUGGESTED RULE EXAMPLE. BRIEFLY state why you think a rule example is needed. Suggest wording for the example. BRIEFLY cite implications and ramifications of your proposed example. Your Name & Date.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, June 06, 2021 - 04:35 pm: Edit

Quick reference chart

QUICK REF Rules Products.pdf quick_ref_rules_products.pdf (5 k)

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, June 06, 2021 - 04:37 pm: Edit

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, June 02, 2021 - 04:56 pm: Edit

General Instructions: Staff will get everything. I will post a few random bits on the BBS for comment.

Remember what STAGE each item is in.
PO-100, PO-300, PO-400, and PO-500 are in STAGE TWO which means none of the "changes/fixes" have been done. Stage two is just getting it reformatted, so don't waste time saying "This ruling from CL47 is not there." I know it's not. That will be done in Stage Three.

Remember the click boom rule. If something generates several reports, don't report it, ask if it needs reporting. Here is one example.
Rule 320.21 has a title in caps/lower.
Rule 320.31 has a title in all-caps.
Obviously, one is "wrong" but when Jean and I decide which it is I will fix it.

When you see 23 things done in format A and 17 done in format B it is NOT automatically obvious which is correct. So rather than 17 reports that format B is wrong just one report that Formats A and B are different is enough. That let's ME decide which is correct (might be either or a third option) and I will correct them.

My plan is to get all four books to STAGE TWO before doing any serious work updating/fixing any of them so hold your thunder.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, June 02, 2021 - 05:53 pm: Edit

I should note that there is information in the daily weblog which is important to those participating in this project. Staffers are expected to read the weblog whenever it is posted for information about progress and schedules.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, June 12, 2021 - 03:45 pm: Edit

ABOUT THE WARBOOK
These questions were answered by SVC:
Q: Is it your plan for the Warbook to change rule numbers? For example, to put all the tug missions in one place, or to move the Gorn Logistics rule to its proper location, or to put all special ship construction rules in one place?
A: I have no plans to change a lot of rule numbers as this would simply confuse people trying to compare the Warbook to previous editions of the rules set. In special cases, certain things can be done. For example, the original tug mission list could easily include references to other missions (or simply reprint the actual rules, under their original rule numbers, as a sidebar). There could easily be a reference (or sidebar) to handle the Gorn logistics rule. Special ship construction isn’t an easily defined thing, and there are no plans to move a whole bunch of rules to other numbers (since once the Warbook is done it would be used to create updated rules for the other products and those products need their original rule numbers). We can certainly include all special construction rules in the index (even in a sidebar somewhere).
Q: Is it your intention that the Warbook include a new complete index?
A: There is certainly no problem with doing this. Planetary Operations includes the most current and complete Index but if anybody knows of an error or omission in that Index, please let me know.
Q: Will the Warbook include updated versions of General War scenarios adding units from later expansions?
A: This is the plan, and has slowed down the project by months.
Q: Do you plan to remove the tactics boxes to save space?
A: I really haven’t given it any thought. Space isn’t really a concern in the Warbook. In a manual for a specific game, it always drives us crazy because there are about ten or twelve independent sections of the rules (places where the next rule must jump to the start of the next complete page). That is a problem in an individual product but the Warbook will be a compilation and can make more efficient use of space. Some of the confused rules writing has been caused by space issues, where the rulebook for a given product must (for budget reasons) be no more than a certain number of pages and you have to shoehorn every rules section into a defined number of pieces of paper. The Warbook can be whatever size we want it to be.
Q: Do you plan to rewrite all of the rules that are not clear? Do you plan to correct all uses of words which are contrary to the dictionary? Do you plan to rewrite all rules that do not say what they mean or mean what they say?
A: Certainly, but there is one catch. YOU have to tell ME the specific rule numbers and patiently explain to me what you think is unclear with that rule. If you think something is unclear, you have to show me what part is unclear and cite two or more plausible and contradictory interpretations. If you think words are used incorrectly, you need to tell me which ones and why you think that is the case. Now, remember, Nick Blank has "interpreted" dozens of rules for me and those interpretations have been reviewed and published and those published interpretations will be processed into the Warbook. But if there is no published entry for a given rule, there is little chance that the rule will be rewritten unless somebody shows a reason for us to do so.
Q: Is there any hope of fixing the rules on drone raids, fighter raids, and PF raids in the Warbook?
A: Depends on what you mean by "fixing"? If you mean "change the rules so my enemy cannot do that thing that drives me crazy" then probably not. If you mean "change the rules so I can do something to drive my enemy crazy" then probably not. If you mean "make it more clear just what they do mean" then sure, just send in a memo listing what points you think are unclear and what two (or more) possible explanations you think the text supports. If you mean "change the risk-reward ratio" then you have to first convince us that the RRR is wrong. If you mean "add the parts of the rules that the designer apparently thinks are there but which we cannot find" then all you have to do is identify the specific problem and it will be fixed. If you mean "end whatever screw up causes the FRD park to be surrounded by 18 police ships" then help us understand what part of the rule compells you to misuse your police in this way.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, June 19, 2021 - 03:54 pm: Edit

Guys, I love you all for the help that makes it possible to run this company without nearly enough people, time, or money, but if I need information I need the information, not clues as to where to go look for the information. You just found it, so instead of typing "CL48, page 112, left column, fifteenth paragraph, third line" type out the actual info. It's not that I am too lazy to go look it up, but I am the bottleneck (not by choice) and every second I spend looking up something you could just tell me is a second I could be entering corrections into the document. That ultimately means that the book gets done faster and that when I run out of the time the Board of Directors allowed me to have there won't be line items left on the table for the next update five years from now.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, June 12, 2021 - 12:04 pm: Edit

Staff: We need to find instances of build and upgrade costs for ships and bases within the rules, recommend their removal, and instead, point to the SITs as the correct source for such costs — special cases excepted. Rationale: As we have seen, the rulebooks sometimes take over a decade to update or correct, but the SITs are revised more often. We also don’t want to be chasing a second source of data to update it as it causes confusion for the players and time consuming rulings by ADB if we miss them.
SVC: sounds good but I'm not going to lose sleep if we miss six or seven.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, June 17, 2021 - 04:55 am: Edit

I KNOW I AM BEING PICKY BUT
315.4 – delete the last sentence
SHOULD BE
(315.4) – delete the last sentence
OTHERWISE I HAVE TO MANUALLY INSERT THE () TO GET THE LINE ITEM TO SORT INTO THE RIGHT SPOT ON THE LIST. I AM JUST ASKING NICELY.