C3V Public Announcements

[superfrog]

Originally Posted by MegaSilver

Great new release!

Though I do think that the new Ivor should not have "For" in the opening sentence, for that makes it sounds like it stacks crazy.

]

It's very strange wording, but it's straight off the Ivor text. Precedent and all that.

[MegaSilver]

Originally Posted by superfrog

It's very strange wording, but it's straight off the Ivor text. Precedent and all that.

Ah, you're right. Didn't notice that.

[Dad_Scaper]

Precedent is full of slight abuses of the English language. It's why I make no promises to make precedent happy in my Help With Wurdz thread.

[Johngee]

SOOooooo... does this mean that IF I have an Army with four (4) squads of 4th Reg. or 10th Mass. and acquire this glyph THEN each of those figures with a Ranged Attack greater than four (4), has the range of it's muskets increased by sixteen (16) for a total of 22 hexes, or approximately 44 yards / meters ??? Wow, that would certainly be more realistic within the scale of the terrain landscape for non-HS war gaming simulations, wouldn't it ??? ~~~lol~~~

[superfrog]

Nope. That would certainly be interesting, but it's just a +1 bonus to each figure.

[Lyrgard]

At first, while reading the glyph, I thought it was a treasure glyph that added to the holder's range depending on the number of 4+ ranged figures. Totally crazy...

I think following precedent is fine and all, but up to a certain point, that I think is crossed by this really confusing wording.

[superfrog]

We have 4 books that need to be made! Anybody interested in the Xualtiacan Fire Ants, 20th Maine Volunteers, Achillean Gladiatrix, or Tomb Skeleton Archers please send @Dad_Scaper a PM.

[Porkins]

Originally Posted by Lyrgard

I think following precedent is fine and all, but up to a certain point, that I think is crossed by this really confusing wording.

I agree completely. Precedent is great and all, but it isn't necessarily always correct, neither in Heroscape, nor in legal situations.

[NecroBlade]

Originally Posted by Porkins

I agree completely. Precedent is great and all, but it isn't necessarily always correct, neither in Heroscape, nor in legal situations.

[Just_a_Bill]

I agree with these guys. Consistency is a wonderful thing, but only consistency with the stuff that makes sense. There are some pretty terrible wordings in classic (glyphs are a big mess in general), and "tradition" should not lead us to create new confusion by copying old confusion.

A "for each" approach is not appropriate for the game effect you intended. "For each" means we're counting something to figure out how many times we get to do a certain thing, or how big our modifier is going to be.

Sometimes we just have to forget the goofy, confusing way Hasbro wrote something and write a simple statement that says what we mean:

Each figure you control with a Range number of 4 or more adds 1 to its Range.

Any time precedent needs an R&C, it's a bad precedent.

[Xotli]

Guys, I think what you're not considering is the other side of the coin: if there's a precedent, and we change the wording because we don't like it, or we think it was confusing, or we just think we're smarter than the original designers and we can make it sound better, then we are creating confusion. People are going to read it and say, "hmmm ... this is almost like this other, official wording, but they've changed the verbiage slightly, so it must work differently." In every game, there's a certain amount of institutional knowledge that comes with long experience. You just know what certain words mean, even if it's not 100% grammatically explicit. For that game, that's just what those words mean. And when people (especially thoughtful, deliberate people such as your C3V team) explicitly choose to change those words, it throws off everyone who's come to understand what the words means. We don't do that unless there's a very good reason to.

[Dad_Scaper]

Both perspectives are perfectly reasonable. Institutionally, we take @Xotli 's approach, because (as he suggests) we choose to tread *very lightly* over what's already settled terrain. We would never want to be in a place - quoting Xotli again - from which we look back over what we'd done, and we said to ourselves: "How did we end up here?" And that's what we fear. Express the same thing in a different way, and then along comes a power that suddenly seems to affect one implementation but not the other, and it becomes a sticky knot to untie.

Believe me guys, sloppy word usage drives me bananas. I assure you that ugly wording bugs none of you more than it bugs me. But we take the cautious approach, because we choose to be the bastion of conservatism.