Jump to content



Photo

Creating a FAQ


  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

#21 Guest_Not In Sample_*

Guest_Not In Sample_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 March 2011 - 05:28 AM

arkangl said:

 

You both are not getting this. this is the FAQ forum so I want it in the FAQ so that they can explain it not that I don't believe it on there I am just saying I want it in the FAQ.

 

 

youre not phrasing it in that manner , you are phrasing it as though you are argueing the point that they ARE different , which as one of the creators has made clear (though on another site forum reply ) , they are not . while i understand you r point about user accounts , his is not a new account , and his participation has been in line to prove or lend creadance to his identity .



#22 arkangl

arkangl

    Member

  • Members
  • 418 posts

Posted 28 March 2011 - 06:53 AM

Sorry about that let me start over. I would like to see a FAQ on the deploy/enter ruling and explain what happens for missions like "descent" where you start in the middle of a board.



#23 arkangl

arkangl

    Member

  • Members
  • 418 posts

Posted 28 March 2011 - 08:09 AM

Also a thing I found should be in the FAQ what happens for missions like Descent also where it says place cover anywhere outside of the objective but the place cover rule states it can only be placed in the middle tiles of the map. Which one supercedes? Reason I say this is because of the Defenders deployment is all the way around the map and the Attackers are in the middle there is no specific center tiles. This is the only current mission I know of with this problem.



#24 FlorisH

FlorisH

    Member

  • Members
  • 212 posts

Posted 29 March 2011 - 08:14 AM

Every mission clearly states how terrain is placed and if it states that terrain is placed according to the normal rules then the "zones of cover" are marked on the map. I really don't see how this can cause problems.

There are no missions that have static deployment. For all missions you count as having taken one move action to get onto the board regardless of coming on from an edge or from the centre of the board. Again I don't see how this can cause problems. It is explained on page 16 of the rulebook as I already pointed out.



#25 arkangl

arkangl

    Member

  • Members
  • 418 posts

Posted 29 March 2011 - 10:22 AM

Dude do you know what FAQ stands for besides frenqently asked questions it means if they screw up on something in the rule book they announce what they screwed up OFFICIALLY not on the forums. One thing says one thing and the other says the other. IF THEY WANTED IT TO BE STATED THAT ALL MISSIONS GET ENTER THEN THEY SHOULDNT HAVE SCREWED UP TYPING. Unless its official I dont play it that way. It says deploy and in every other game deploy means it starts on the table b4 the game I dont care what it says on page 16. It needs to be put in a FAQ thats what they are for not you telling me what it is. Dont like my address of it deal with it.I am saying it needs to be in the FAQ not that its wrong.



#26 Major Mishap

Major Mishap

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,728 posts

Posted 31 March 2011 - 09:16 PM

No point posting here Ark anyway, no official reads or responds to these forums.

But as to your deploying in center question, scenario 2 Ambush scenario has different wording on deploying.  The defender starts deployed and like in most scenario's the attacker moves onto the table, sorry don't have scenario book with me to get exact quote.  I don't know the Descent scenario, is the deployment described differently in that to?  If not then it will follow the normal 'come on table' deployment rules, guessing by the scenario title these troops are air-dropped?  If so then normal deployment rules make sense.



#27 Guest_Not In Sample_*

Guest_Not In Sample_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 April 2011 - 04:24 AM

Major Mishap said:

No point posting here Ark anyway, no official reads or responds to these forums.

But as to your deploying in center question, scenario 2 Ambush scenario has different wording on deploying.  The defender starts deployed and like in most scenario's the attacker moves onto the table, sorry don't have scenario book with me to get exact quote.  I don't know the Descent scenario, is the deployment described differently in that to?  If not then it will follow the normal 'come on table' deployment rules, guessing by the scenario title these troops are air-dropped?  If so then normal deployment rules make sense.

 

again , its not different :

http://www.boardgame...enter-vs-deploy

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 .

 

FFG has not said or posted any changes to the rules that DG (Dust Games) came up with when they made this game . there for i choose to accept the word of one of the game crreators as opposed to just argueing a point that they have already clarified .

as you said MM , FFG hasnt answered any questions or participated , over on BGG , from time to time the game creators DO , and in this case did . they dont work for FFG , the contracts seem to spell out what is what for who , so DG has no reason to come on here and reply .

AA's comment that profiles mean nothing , that some one can come on a site and make a profile that says what ever is a double edged sword . the same thing could be said if some one came on HERE and made a profile saying they work for FFG , granted , it would eventually be killed when it was found out that they were not legit , but zamfiriscues profile is over a year old , and his participation in the last year has earned him the recognition that his profile IS legit .



#28 Redordead

Redordead

    Member

  • Members
  • 62 posts

Posted 01 April 2011 - 07:28 AM

FlorisH said:

Every mission clearly states how terrain is placed and if it states that terrain is placed according to the normal rules then the "zones of cover" are marked on the map. I really don't see how this can cause problems.

There are no missions that have static deployment. For all missions you count as having taken one move action to get onto the board regardless of coming on from an edge or from the centre of the board. Again I don't see how this can cause problems. It is explained on page 16 of the rulebook as I already pointed out.

 

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.

I have to be honest and say that while I was totally confused by the use of the word 'deploy' (being a big Incursion player) my group opted to use the normal rules for entering the board during patrol and found that it simulated patrolling units coming into view of the ambushers in drips and drabs.

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.

The whole issue makes a lot of sense when you consider that the designers' first language is something other than English, but it could have been worse. I refer - in particular - to an incident where I told a Parisian waiter that I wanted a drill with cream for desert, (Une fraise = strawberries, or dentist's drill).

I won't tell you what I called his mother while I was trying to thank him... 

 



#29 Major Mishap

Major Mishap

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,728 posts

Posted 01 April 2011 - 10:05 AM

I take it that the guy on BGG is a writer of the rules then?  If so, he's a bit of a numpty for changing the set up description anyway, why would anybody do that regardless of language barriers?   So yes, it needs to be on an official errata as deploy on and arrive on are two different things.



#30 Guest_Not In Sample_*

Guest_Not In Sample_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 April 2011 - 11:04 AM

Major Mishap said:

 

I take it that the guy on BGG is a writer of the rules then?  If so, he's a bit of a numpty for changing the set up description anyway, why would anybody do that regardless of language barriers?   So yes, it needs to be on an official errata as deploy on and arrive on are two different things.

 

 

oliver zamfirescu , top of page 2 of the rule book as " cammander in chief " .

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 .

and from my own experience , writing house rules like the airplane rules and such , even if you read it 10 times , you may miss an issue of wordage because when YOU read it , you ALREADY understood what you were talking about . its a bit more af a challange to make it so EVRY  reader knows what you are thinking . then add in doing it in another language .

 

i dont deny that it should be in the official erratta , but as that BGG thread shows , this qusetion was already being asked in OCTOBER of last year along with other threads with rules questions that got answered over there , in some cases by players who knew where something was in the rules , and in a few cases by DG staff. the lack of response by FFG , or any official FAQ or errata means we are all we have here on this site .

 

unfortunatly , FFG  and DG dont seem that close , so its kinda like dealing with divorced parents when you have a question .



#31 Major Mishap

Major Mishap

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,728 posts

Posted 01 April 2011 - 07:53 PM

I've had a read of the scenarios and have played some with the 'deploy here' set up and will continue to play as written in the book and deploy any force that the rules tell you to.  Playing it any other way just doesn't make sense, how can a unit enter the board thats not on a table edge, its just not right.   

For example the second scenario Ambush, does it not make sense as its an ambush, thats what you do to the defender?  If you play with the defender moving on its just another kill all battle.  Has anybody contacted and received a reply at all? 



#32 blkdymnd

blkdymnd

    Member

  • Members
  • 958 posts

Posted 01 April 2011 - 08:05 PM

 we see it as kind of a 'fog of war' effect.  you know the force is on the board, just not sure they're positioning.  it was always clear for us when we read the rulebook because of page 16.



#33 Redordead

Redordead

    Member

  • Members
  • 62 posts

Posted 02 April 2011 - 12:21 AM

Major Mishap said:

I've had a read of the scenarios and have played some with the 'deploy here' set up and will continue to play as written in the book and deploy any force that the rules tell you to.  Playing it any other way just doesn't make sense, how can a unit enter the board thats not on a table edge, its just not right.   

For example the second scenario Ambush, does it not make sense as its an ambush, thats what you do to the defender?  If you play with the defender moving on its just another kill all battle.  Has anybody contacted and received a reply at all? 

I kind of see what you're saying, but like I wrote about the Defender deployment in patrol, the attackers would have a general idea of which units are where on the patrol route, but nothing specific. The deployment of defending units one at a time simulates the fact that attackers cannot possibly know the 'exact' layout of their enemy's deployment, only where they will deploy.

 

Similarly, the lift mission. The defenders know for a fact that their opponents are descending on the lift platform, but don't know much more than that. They can only guess about their exact deployment on the platform. 

Does that make sense to anyone else? 

While I was originally confused by the wording of 'deploy' and 'enter', I have no problem whatsoever with deploying as normal in the patrol and ambush scenarios.



#34 Guest_Not In Sample_*

Guest_Not In Sample_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 April 2011 - 04:45 AM

Major Mishap said:

I've had a read of the scenarios and have played some with the 'deploy here' set up and will continue to play as written in the book and deploy any force that the rules tell you to.  Playing it any other way just doesn't make sense, how can a unit enter the board thats not on a table edge, its just not right.   

For example the second scenario Ambush, does it not make sense as its an ambush, thats what you do to the defender?  If you play with the defender moving on its just another kill all battle.  Has anybody contacted and received a reply at all? 

 

i havent contacted DG , as i accept the BGG post as legit from one of the game creators , but you can always be the first to ask the company its self .............. though you may not like the answer



#35 Major Mishap

Major Mishap

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,728 posts

Posted 02 April 2011 - 09:52 AM

O'h I don't mind the answer either way, a reply would be a bonus though :)  Sent off email this morning.



#36 arkangl

arkangl

    Member

  • Members
  • 418 posts

Posted 05 April 2011 - 02:41 AM

My responses over you guys posts.

"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.

 "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.

"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.

"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?

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?



#37 Guest_Not In Sample_*

Guest_Not In Sample_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 April 2011 - 04:16 AM

["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  .



#38 arkangl

arkangl

    Member

  • Members
  • 418 posts

Posted 05 April 2011 - 05:19 AM

Yea I completely agree with your. So I messaged Dust Games themselves to see what they say if they dont answer then I'll message Oliver himself. I also want to make my own FAQ if no one is taking the initiative to do it kind of like the ones the 40k players use for the adepticon and other cons the INAT FAQ. It's a suggestion of FAQ rulings nothing official so TOs and players can use this until the games maker makes a ruling.



#39 Redordead

Redordead

    Member

  • Members
  • 62 posts

Posted 11 April 2011 - 09:38 PM

arkangl said:

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.

 

I've been a 40K player for 20 years now and while I agree that a number of the player base can be very circumspect in their interpretation of fair play, the worst gaming community for out and out exploitation of army lists and rules is Warmachine/Hordes, which is one of my favourite games. 

What I love about Dust Tactics is that it's not possible to cheat in the same way due to the method of range calculation. Like warmahordes, what I particularly like about Dust tactics is that unit stats are on a card in front of you for all to see. 

I know you don't mean any offense, but some 40K players could become annoyed by being used as a metaphor for the wargaming bad guy. I myself have always striven to play fairly in all my games, but especially 40K which was the one that got me into the hobby.

I'm not having a dig at you mate. That's not what I'm about at all. I rarely offer my criticism on forums, but you're a good bloke and you do a hell of a lot for this fledgling community with your excellent blog. 

I just don't think we should base our enjoyment of this game on slagging off ones that other people enjoy and have enjoyed for a number of years.

 

Red



#40 Major Mishap

Major Mishap

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,728 posts

Posted 12 April 2011 - 07:50 PM

Thought you'd like to know I got this response about deployment:

Hi Dave,

You recently asked a question about the FFG board game Dust Tactics. Here is the answer:

Using the word "deploy" was an error, and the correct word should be "enter." In other words, this scenario is just like any other where you enter the battlefield.

Thank you for your interest in Dust Tactics. I hope this answer has resolved your question. Enjoy the game!

Steve Kimball
Associate Game Producer
Fantasy Flight Games
 

So, all cleared up :)






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS