Rules - Minor typos and corrections

[tim]

I thought I'd add this as a place to post minor corrections, typos and errors in examples that we come across as we ramp up to the start and then begin to play.  Using this we can avoid cluttering our view of substantive issues and changes.  And we won't forget them as we move onwards. 

[ATD]

Yep, good Tim. OCR left a lot of "debris" in the editable rules. I've eradicated loads but there will still be a few to catch.

[Deleted]

I am still working off the ATD 1.2 edition of the rules; if the following have already been addressed elsewhere, I apologize.

[34.8] "...and Squadron Ground Support Units ()." should perhaps read "...and Squadron Ground Support Units (SGSU)."

[34.82] "[34.82] arrive in the Naval ..." should perhaps read "[34.82] SGSUs arrive in the Naval ..."

[35.12] "[35.12] have their Capability Point Allowance printed on the counter; they are vehicles. move in the Truck Convoy Phase."[sic] should perhaps read "[35.12] SGSUs have their Capability ... on the counter; for CPA purposes they are vehicles and they move in the Truck Convoy Phase."

[35.13] "[35.13] arrive according to the orders of the player (See Case 34.8)." should, perhaps, read "[35.13] SGSUs arrive and depart according to the orders of the player (See Cases 34.82 and 34.85)."

[35.14] "[35.14] require ..." should read, I think, "[35.14] SGSUs require ..."

[38.0] (2nd paragraph, "General Rule") "...survival). have the capability of readying..." should read "...survival). SGSUs have the capability of readying..." perhaps and "...is limited to each air facility's current squadron capacity." should read "...is limited to the total capacity of the SGSUs at each air facility."

[44.0] The importance of Malta cannot be OVERstated, not "understated". It is quite easy for one to understate its importance; one may, for example, say merely that its importance cannot be understated.

[44.14] "...does not need-nor does he use- on Malta..." should read "...does not need - nor does he use - SGSUs on Malta...", perhaps?

More as I find it ...

[ATD]

Thanks Bob. It wasn’t easy to scan and OCR all this stuff into an acceptable word format (or at least it was very time-consuming). It’s useful to have all those anomalies specified in this way.

Between those corrections and editing in the recently discussed issues, I’ll have my work cut out again. Will this game ever commence!

[tim]

Tony - At least to me, the point of this forum was to store things we Do Not have to address before playing.

[Michael Miller]

I would hope that routine OCR/typo fixes and clarifications will be posted inline without delaying start, after the obligatory read-through. I don't see any further rule issues that rise to the level of blocking play.

[Deleted]

If you want me to take over care and maintenance of the rulebook, Tony, I'd be happy to. I love editing documents. Going through text looking for grammatical and typographical errors is like Zen gardening to me. I'd be hono(u)red to be able to contribute for a change.

[6.14] Remove extraneous colon in "The 1st RNF did: not use ...". (Gotta say, "remove extraneous colon" makes me laugh/flinch when I read it. Sorry. Back to work.)

[6.23] "... with a Cohesion Level of 3 ..." should read "... with a Cohesion Level of -3 ..."

[6.26] In "a unit may get a level of worse than 26 if ... jump it past the 26 level.)" both of those "26" numbers should be negative; i.e., "-26".

[8.17] "Non-motorized units those with ... or less may never ..." should read "Non-motorized units (those with ...or less) may never ..."

[8.41] "... use the Road Breakdown Rate ('A BP)..." should read "...use the Road Breakdown Rate (1/2 BP)..."

[8.42] "... would be +8 CP and s/A Breakdown Points." should read "...would be +8 CP and +6 Breakdown Points."

     (sorry, I'm not reading EVERY section yet)

[16.46] "... has no Armour ·or loses all its armour the Dummy ..." shoud read "... has no Armour (or loses all its armour) the Dummy ..."

[18.24] "A unit in Reserve Status may ..." should read "A unit in Reserve II Status may ..."

[19.45] "... as a substitute. Fie could not, however, ..." should read "... as a substitute. It could not, however, ..."

[19.62] "... eliminated because of attrition on combat-not breakdown (i.e., no TOE strength points remaining) ..." should at least be corrected to read "... eliminated because of attrition or combat - not breakdown - (i.e., no TOE strength points remaining) ..." and should really be re-worded for clarity.

    (gap)

[27.41] "... or at any lime an Enemy ..." should read "... or at any time an Enemy ..." if this is not the British "pasta rule".

[28.11] "Each Infantry TOE strength point that Surrenders not tanks or guns becomes ..." should at least be corrected to read "Each Infantry TOE strength point that Surrenders (not tanks or guns) becomes ..." and should really be reworded for clarity.

More as I find them....
 

[ATD]

It makes sense for me to do all the editing in Larger chunks, rather than to keep dipping in. The time critical element to commencement may well be the ability of the Commonwealth side to complete the supply set up. Naturally, a precursor to that is Bob getting up to speed with the rules in general and those in particular which impact most on his role. We are overdue for a chat sometime Bob…

[Deleted]

Oct 2, 2014 18:21:21 GMT ATD said:

It makes sense for me to do all the editing in Larger chunks, rather than to keep dipping in. The time critical element to commencement may well be the ability of the Commonwealth side to complete the supply set up. Naturally, a precursor to that is Bob getting up to speed with the rules in general and those in particular which impact most on his role. We are overdue for a chat sometime Bob…

As far as fixing typos goes, no it does not make sense for you to be wasting time on minutia.  I'll send you a word doc with change-tracking turned on so you can accept or deny changes as you see fit, add your substantive changes, and re-release the document so we all have the latest update.  If you see me post something in this thread that I shouldn't put into the doc, let me know and I won't.  Pretty simple.  Please recall that the reason to have multiple players is to share the load, not to impede you; in the current game of "Get CNA Started" we are on your team, not your opponents.

Yes, we are overdue for a conference, Tony. I'll see if I can get skype up and running.  I have not yet reached the "review of OB for a rear-area forces request" or even reached the "I need these forces to do my job" stage yet, but I'm getting there and, I think, accelerating. 

[ATD]

Again Bob, that’s very helpful. The updates need to be made on the live rules version of course and I have corrected one or two typos myself at this end. I can abandon those in favour of your more substantive work, or forward you the up-to-date file if the changes can be applied automatically (though I doubt that). In any event, as I say, it is not a problem to overwrite the small changes already made here.

Please bear in mind the background of the very significant personal effort that has brought the game and systems to this stage now. Not suggesting appreciation of course, merely some consideration of it. Principally, it’s establishing a protocol now which will allow the game to proceed in all ways robustly in the future.

Just on one specific point Bob, would you mind confirming that you do not have in mind any other kind of supply storage (other than regular dumps, including the ones at air facilities) and mini dumps for water and fuel. I just wanted to be sure that either I wasn’t missing something that is there, or there wasn’t something being added that isn’t there!

[Deleted]

If you are referring to "stockpiles", Tony, no I am not referring to anything new. Supply dumps are facilities that must be constructed before use. Supplies off-loaded into a hex do not constitute a "dump", mini or otherwise, any more than a couple replacement TOEs in a hex constitute a combat unit. It is, nevertheless, handy to have a term with which to refer to such informal accumulations of supplies in the desert; I use "stockpiles".

Regarding the consolidation of our work on fixing typos: I have not yet started putting my fixes into a document; if you send me your latest edit I will start with that and add the fixes I have identified.

Oh, one more thing: I found the graphic to which Tim referred when I asked about the example in 21.23.  It somehow migrated to 21.37.

[ATD]

What MS Word can do with images and layout!

Which section of the rules allows for supplies to be offloaded in a hex, other than the mini dump provision for stores and ammo? I didn't think this was permitted, hence the original query. It's a while since I browsed those sections though.

[tim]

Guys. Please move the supplies discussion to a new thred. Let's keep this on topic.

[Deleted]

[24.9] "Supplies may be placed in a hex not containing a constructed supply dump. The only restriction on such is that trucks 'in convoy' may not load such supplies." It does mention that there are restrictions on the number of points that may be so deployed but I don't have those handy. There are reasons one might expect to find all four types of supplies in such a hex. Fuel, ammunition, and stores not only can but MUST be off-loaded into hexes before use and one cannot assume that all units will at all times have all the first line trucks sufficient to carry their supply allotments.

Fuel: [49.16] "fuel from convoying trucks must be off-loaded first"
Ammunition: [50.15] "ammunition on truck convoys may not be used until it is off-loaded"
Stores: [51.15] "Stores on truck convoys cannot be used until of-loaded."
Water: No mention of an "off-load" requirement, only that water may be transported by trucks. Nevertheless, it seems water might conceivably be left in a well hex if a unit were to draw more than it could carry or if water were off-loaded for use by a unit short on trucks.

There is, on the other hand, no mention of - let alone a provision for - "mini-dumps" anywhere that I can find. Supplies are either in a dump, on a truck/ship/plane, held by a TOE, or in a hex.

Side note: In [53.25], the authors use the term "cache" to refer to a bunch of supplies not in a convoy or dump; I would consider that a reasonable, maybe even preferable, alternative to "stockpile."

[Michael Miller]

The restriction to Stores and Ammunition is implicit in the Supply Dump Capacity Chart [54.13]: 50 each Ammo and Stores, zero each Fuel and Water.