Really? I find the old version easier to read and understand.
For me, the old HW rules were easier to read. With the new rules I have to keep more concepts in mind as I go along.
The old HW rules did not work, at all.
Yes, the old HW rules had gaps.
What do you want, a rule that covers every reasonable question you might have...
That of course is preferred. But when I read sentences like . . .
If a Forward Location enterable by a HW Unit is devoid of armed, friendly units and contains an armed, Known, non-Disrupted enemy unit, the HW Unit must move to that Location, or to another enterable Location that contains either a Known enemy unit or a pillbox occupied by such a unit. Once any HW Unit enters such a Location during an Impulse, the Location is no longer devoid of friendly units, freeing other HW Units from the requirement to enter that Location during that Impulse.
. . . plus the dozen other sentences on HW movement, my mind tires.
When I read a sentence like below, I more easily understand what it's saying:
All of the units in the chain not actually in an enemy-occupied Location must move forward (in the same general direction) one hex as a stack before any part of the chain can be subject to Defensive First Fire.
What "forward" means in the above sentence is not stringently defined, but the sentence itself is simpler and has fewer bound modifiers.
I'd be perfectly OK if every single rule was doubled from the current word count, just so long as all problems were resolved by doing so.
At some point, though, too long is too long.
Regardless of all that, I do thank you and the others who took so much time to address the gaps in the HW rules. I'm sure it took many more hours than I suspect, and the new rules are certainly very playable and cover most if not all of the situations that may arise. The tireless efforts of the MMP question-answering team is very much appreciated in all that they do.
(I wasn't trying to pick a fight earlier. I was only suggesting that if the rule sections in chapter E were re-written with a similar increase in length and complexity, then I suspect fewer players would choose scenarios that require them. As it is, when I see the pages I have to read to play panjis or rice paddies, I often opt for a different scenario.)
