["i would like to point out that the people who created the game DONT speak english as their first language , so there were bound to be some issues in translation ."
This is why publishing companies hire editors whether it is for books or for games."
who likewaise have to deal with translating the documents ,
"I completely understand about the translation issue and can see both your point and Arkangel's, but I think it might be a good idea to include this clarification in the FAQ for those of us who don't frequent board game geek."
That is what I have been trying to say the whole time. Either FFG or Dust Games needs to make one."
which sadly FFG doesnt seem to be interested in dealing with any time soon . and DG doesnt have any reason to gothrough the trouble of since FFG has all the rights to this . if the contract were different so that DG could still produce official game units for the game , i am sure they would have a stake in it , but they dont . we are lucky that they answer questions , and the occasional nuggets form ZAM on BGG . i dont deny your point that it needs to be put in an FAQ , just that untill some one gets around to doing so , we have to use what we got , and what we got is not here on this site .
"I have played in tournaments for a long time now and this will require some kind of official ruling to prevent bloodshed of some description at events. Sadly, the majority of wargame tournament players have to put up with the occasional bum-hole who will argue semantics at the cost of having a fun game. I think that's what Arkangel wants to avoid at Dust tournaments."
This is what I am trying to prevent b/c I know as soon as a 40k player steps into this game they are gonna argue."
actually , there are plnty of 40K players getting into this , and i dont think rules lawyers are strictly confined JUSt to the GW player base . most people have been willing to accept the BGG ruling , or just ask for an answer from DG .
"Its not necessarily that they changed it , but when you write a rule set for another language , its not always apparent that there is a problem that was lost in translation when you consider that some words have similar meanings , and multiple meanings . nowhere in the rules does it EVER say that one player sets up ALL his forces before another , though from the word deploy , you could confer that idea based on other games out there atht do things that way , how ever it could also be confered based on other sections of the rules that only one unit "deploys" at a time , which is how it works normaly in line with the rules , OR that deployment zones are simply whaer you can choose to set up ."
If I wrote that they should always enter I would have wrote the same word over and over again so enter would be enter in no matter what language its translated to. I got a hold of a French copy of the rule and even in that the wording is different. Does anyone have it in Italian or some other language?
which goes back to the chicken and the egg . if one translated version was made first , then translated over and over again from that one , the error could go on in most .
There is a new mission in operation cyclone thats worded completely different to simulated an ambush. One army deploys then the other. If there pg 16 rules are in affect then how do you work that one out?
unfortunatly i cant afford the $60 in printer cartriges , and havent copied them at the local kinkos , and since the PDF doesnt have the scenarios , i dont have a "home" copy of the opcyclone rules . but i would play it as normal . something this game is that many others are not , is fair . and even with the normal enter/deploy ruoles as written in the rule book , you can still have a "ambush " based on how the board is set up . and despite the mission being to ambush the opposing player , it needs to be understood that its all part of a story , and that fluff and game play are 2 seperate tings since the fluff doesnt rely on rules to tell the story , and the story , rarely depicts what really happens .
i have been working on putting together some special scenarios for day long special events , and one of the things i have l;ooked at is ambush type scenarios . i have looked at and testplayed a number of differnt ideas , and found that the rules as written work best to keep it as a game , and not just turn it into a blood bath for the defender . the rules as written work just fine , and it can still be a fun to play and greatly bloody ambush just based on how the board is set up , and WHERE the defender gets to set his forces up .