(11-05-2013, 10:56 AM)Shad Wrote: [ -> ]What do you call the behavior behind a disparity that large? 
I suspect the info on the cover of Secret Weapons was composed before finally development of the scenario book was completed. It is egregiously wrong. It could also be that Secret Weapons began life as a comb bound 10 scenario set with only those games drawn on, and morphed into a book.
Mind you, this is just devil's advocate on my part.
And as Jay can tell us all, what the designer submits is never exactly what the publisher releases.
As far as scenario books using multiple sets of counters are concerned as an old timer, I have no problem with them. At least we are seeing fewer scenarios requiring multiple copies of the same game to play. The record here is in Tank Battles, where FIVE sets of Heros or Red Warriors were needed to play one of the Mars scenarios.
However, the elimination of the comb bounds and some of the books with counters should make future supplement possibilities more constrained. For instance, Nihon Silk is already history, so books expanding actions in the Pacific or the Dutch East Indies may need a new source of counters. Likewise Blue Division, South Africa's War, White Eagles, etc.
Down the road, White Eagles will return as a boxed game, as will the Romanian trilogy, but many of the expansions we've played over the years will exist only on this website.
(11-06-2013, 03:23 AM)larry marak Wrote: [ -> ]What do you call the behavior behind a disparity that large?
I suspect the info on the cover of Secret Weapons was composed before finally development of the scenario book was completed. It is egregiously wrong. It could also be that Secret Weapons began life as a comb bound 10 scenario set with only those games drawn on, and morphed into a book.
Mind you, this is just devil's advocate on my part.
And as Jay can tell us all, what the designer submits is never exactly what the publisher releases.
Larry, all those reasons are excuses for poor QA of a product that goes out the door. No matter how something starts, it should cleanup up and egregious discrepancies should not exist.
Measure twice, cut once. I will take a simple carpenter over a devil's advocate any day
Nothing controversial about it. I love the supplements. Yes, as long as the QA is done to ensure the scenarios explain which pieces come from what sets that would be more helpful. But the supplements allow for some very fun and different (and educational in the case of the books with articles and OOBs) expansions that you might not get to explore otherwise.
"Vince controversial and in a minority" .........that's unusual NOT
However I too do not mind using counters from several sets. In fact although I currently store my counters by game I will when I have time change to storing by type like Herr Hughes this will also give me a chance to sort out the leaders for once and all as at the moment I seem to have a few mixed up in the wrong bag.
Vince and I are about to try the very large scenario in Tank Battles (Hell's Fury III) and that has caused to mix and match from several sets.
I also concur with Alan's remarks above.
Re: Shad's example from Secret Weapons. This book is currently out of print, and I wrote Mike recommending that if the book is reprinted (IMPORTANT note folks, the new out-of-house printed Avalanche uses since February uses a different sized paper and many older books may not be reprinted because they would need a complete recomposition of their computer files to print in the new size) he correct the information on the back cover.
Bulletin...8:19 am PST.
Secret Weapons has been reprinted with a new cover and the required listings on the cover has been corrected. Lightning service!
(11-08-2013, 02:21 AM)larry marak Wrote: [ -> ]Bulletin...8:19 am PST.
Secret Weapons has been reprinted with a new cover and the required listings on the cover has been corrected. Lightning service!
Do we get a cut of the proceeds for doing the proofing?
Were the 19 cases of errata we've discovered fixed?
Somehow my gut tells me the answer to both those questions is... NO!
(11-08-2013, 08:05 PM)Shad Wrote: [ -> ] (11-08-2013, 02:21 AM)larry marak Wrote: [ -> ]Bulletin...8:19 am PST.
Secret Weapons has been reprinted with a new cover and the required listings on the cover has been corrected. Lightning service!
Do we get a cut of the proceeds for doing the proofing?
Were the 19 cases of errata we've discovered fixed?
Somehow my gut tells me the answer to both those questions is... NO!
Sure! You've already received the standard wargame-proofers pay rate...and the standard play-testers pay rate for discovering the errata as well. Now don't go spending it all in one place!
