Correct....
It is but there is no telling how much that would have affected the layout of the magazine. -- jim
You are a more perceptive that I. Thank you. All I got from a quick read of A4.12 was Movement Bonus.
I can't see how it'd be any extra effort just so long as they intended to include the explanations right from the start. E.g. . . .
I have never published my own magazine but I have worked with many who have. There is only so much room. Sometimes, adding a small amount of text pushes you over onto a new leaf (I think that's the term). When stapled into the middle, a page is actually 4 printed pages in the magazine. Now you have a small sentence at the top of the page and have 3 more pages to fill. Sometimes you cut down so you don't have all that empty space. Sometimes you look for more articles because you have cut everything down as far as you can and you still have a page to fill. Layout isn't a fun thing and I don't envy anyone who does it. -- jim
Bill's suggestion that (future) errata include an explanation for the change is a brilliant proposal. Had this been done from the start, we would be able to refer back to changes across the rules as a whole, without having to speculate on the rationale(s) for any one amendment. The value of being able to track changes over time cannot be overstated.
I agree there is a better way. I actually think Q&A should be done through a forum such as this one. An open period where Questions could be asked. If people are able to answer it, the question is closed. If not, people can "upvote" for a Perry's consideration. This would allow an open input period where many views could be solicited. The thread would be close, the cabal would render it's judgement and reasoning (if necessary). Now you not only have the reasoning, but you also have the context in which the question was asked. Maybe the question you ask next isn't quite explained by the question you just asked.
As long there's a record why things were changed, when, and by whom. I'd welcome broader input.
If the search function worked, you could probably find this all yourself. -- jim
Even with a better search ability on GS, it wouldn't be good enough IMO. Forcing everyone who has a question about a specific piece of errata to re-do the same work isn't kind--coming up with the right search phrases, scrolling through countless hits that may or may not address my specific question, then if I find the right thread requiring me to parse through many posts and posts, following all of the twists and turns properly--been there, done that--blek! And remember that ASL Q&A appear on GS, and BGG, and FB, and Discord, and CSW, and are independent Q&A sent directly to MMP, and on YouTube Channels, and Twitter/X, and Posts on personal websites, and who knows how many other possible Internet forums.
A) Have looked at the name of the link where Klas provides his Q&A? If not, I recommend you do. It cuts at the argument that Q&A are all over. They are only here or they don't make the Q&A.
His lists, however helpful they are--and they are tremendously helpful!--are for only those Q&A that have received an "official" answer from MMP, and that is a very, very small chunk of the questions that're asked about ASL. And I equally value his energetic work answering all of our other lost-in-minutia questions here on GS, his efforts and everyone else's, including Scott's and yours too Jim!
And don't think there is an instance of any errata that is not first included in his collection. If not all, then nearly all start out as Q&A.
Sure, but the idea that "ink is cheap" distracts from the truth that time isn't. I have been on a very few number of those emails. I don't think anyone wants to sum up the discussion that took place there. In the end, the final decision is Perry's no matter the input. And yes, I am not part of that group but I know a couple who are. They will ALWAYS back Perry's call, even if they disagreed internally. So what you're asking for is for Perry to author an article on why he believe the changes need to be made. Maybe Perry would do that and maybe he wouldn't. There was a whole article on the new WA rules in one of the Journals. After I read it, I have more questions than before. Articles and explanations aren't a panacea. Explanations inevitably lead to more questions.
Some find it easy. Some find it hard. Almost EVERYONE who has some understanding of the game will tell you that learning WITH someone--preferably someone who already has some grasp on the rules--is far easier than going it alone. If it were up to me, I would re-write the ASLRB in ACTIVE voice. So much of it PASSIVE voice it's hard to parse. In many of my articles you will find small passages of the ASLRB quoted followed by a paragraph or two turning them into ACTIVE voice for clarity. But that's my pipe dream. -- jim
No, that's not what I'm asking for. I would like a single sentence for the more cryptic errata to explain what the change is meant to do, like the example I gave above:
OK, I got the length of explanation wrong. It would still be on Perry to do it. The shortness of which would only increase the likelihood of subsequent questions. If it were a single sentence, covering each Errata, it would all add up. I defer to Perry. It's his time, not mine. -- jim
