Hello again!

A few comments and suggestions, this time about the 'Characteristics' section, from 0.4.4

First a few specifics I liked:

1) Once again the writing here is smooth and of overall good quality. I had to look hard to find anything to fix!

2) The explanations of the characteristics are short and clear. I especially like the examples showing different ratings, which really helps with getting a feel for them.

3) I like the emphasis on hand-to-hand in the explanation of Attacks (p 11). Without this, a new player could easily be confused. I've even run into some veteran 40K players who were 'confused' on this issue.

4) The examples of tests are laid out in a very clear, step-by-step manner.

Now, a few suggestions. As I said, I had to work hard to find anything worth commenting on. Most of these are stylistic suggestions, rather than typos or other errors.

1) Page 10
'this variety is represented by' OR 'the uniqueness of each fighter is represented by'
rather than
'This variety in each fighter is represented in the form of'

2) Page 10
'which means that the fighter can Walk 4 inches'
rather than
'which translates that the fighter'

3) Page 11
I might say 'grizzled veteran fighter' rather than 'gnarled old',
To me, the latter brings up the image of an old man with a stick beating up hive gangers and aliens--which is pretty cool, come to think of it.

4) Page 11
Perhaps 'withstand a hit from a ranged weapon', as a club (mentioned later) is a weapon.

5) Page 11
I'd suggest 'a test against one of his characteristics'
rather than
'a test on one of his'

6) Page 12
'In the case of a Leadership test' Leadership not italicized here.

7) Page 12
Explanation of a 2 and 12 being a success and failure is very useful. Perhaps also include this in the explanation of tests on p 11?

In General:
Sometimes fighters are referred to as 'it' and sometimes 'they'. It's no big deal, but you may want to consider using just one.

Again I have to say the book is a pleasure to read. Hope some of these come in handy, and keep up the good work!

I swear man... one of these days, when you can't log on the forum, it will be because I added that IN to your nick! THANKS!!! On your comments...


1) Thanks! Not really because ANYTHING I (personally did). Credits totally go to Eliazar and AzureKnight! They are the two major proof-readers, and as you can see their contributions are like the special effects on the movies... so good that only true experts (like you) can appreciate.

3) We are trying to achieve a balance for Death Squads; so it is as much as a shooting game as a Close Combat game. We noticed the same thing regarding Close Combat in other books, so we decided to try an emphasis. Glad to see you liked it.

4) Examples... my pet peeve!!! It is funny, because when discussing things with DaBank, Dozer or jd3, no matter who has an idea it boils down to someone picking up some models (salt shakers do work as proxies some times!) and 'playing' an example. Then everyone goes "Ahhhh... so that is what you mean!". The Examples are intended to capture those eureka moments. I have been criticized on the past of 'too many examples'... but I think they are useful. If you could suggest any more, I'm all ears! Wow... let me not say that out loud... I maybe considered a mutant!


All you suggestions seem very appropriate (I laughed about the 'gnarled old' fighter... GET OFF MY LAWN! Hehehehe...) I will make the changes when I get home.

I also noticed the comment regarding 'fighters' referred to 'it' or 'they'. CRAP! some time ago, we had the word fighter, warrior or model as a variation referring to a specific fighter. It was pointed that it brought confusion; the recommendation was to pick one... fighter. Although we tried to be VERY careful, there were over 3,000 instances that needed to be changed. You caught the end of this problem. I would appreciate if you pointed at the specific occasions.

THANKS!

Roger that. Here's what I've found so far:

Page 11
'shows how many times the fighter can be wounded before it collapses'

Page 11
'If a fighter has a WS of 0 then it cannot defend itself...any blows
struck against it will'

I'll keep an eye out for other occasions as I proofread, and let you know what I find.

Thanks man!

Sorry for the delay... I have been busy. Thanks for all the observations, changes have been made.

You mentioned that an explanation of automatic failure or success would be nice to have on page 11. It is there.

Quote:

Often in the game a fighter will be required to take a Test against one of his Characteristics. In order to pass this Test, the fighter has to roll a D6 and obtain a result equal to or lower than the value of the characteristic involved. Note that if you roll a 6, you automatically fail the Test regardless of the fighter’s Characteristic value and a roll of 1 is considered an automatic success.

Doing the next block of changes!