Re: [eia] Comparing things

[Joel Uckelman <uckelman@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thus spake "Kyle H":
>     I'm not convinced.  First, why would the designers place a "more
> detailed" version of a rule on the back cover of the rule book rather than
> in the rules themselves?  Second, why do the "more detailed" rules on the
> back cover refer to "the victor" instead of "the victor(s)".  If the point
> of these words on the back cover is to be more detailed than the ones in the
> rulebook, why would they make such a vitally important grammatical error?
> 
> kdh

Because they were being sloppy, I expect. The fact that there was an 
article in The General which *advises* doing just that. In fact, here's the 
article reprinted on the AH web site:

http://www.avalonhill.com/default.asp?x=articles/strat/eia20030801

Quoted here is the first item from the last section:

Although Napoleon said, "I would rather fight an alliance than be part of 
one," the fact remains that allies do have one advantage in battle. If you 
contribute, for example, two corps to a battle against the French, the most 
political points you will lose in a defeat is one, while you stand to gain 
as many as three. Your nation could lose three battles and win one and 
still come out even. True, the French would then have nine political 
points, but the important fact is that you would not lose nine.


If what the back of the rulebook says is a mistake, then this whole 
paragraph is too. And it appeared in The General, which was the Avalon Hill 
company magazine. I expect that someone at AH was involved in checking 
strategy articles so that they didn't openly conflict with the game rules. 
Moreover, the guy who wrote this article, Bruce Milligan, is listed in the 
credits on p. 46 as one of the playtesters for the game. Given all that, I 
have a hard time believing that he was wrong about the rules and no one 
caught it.

-- 
J.


_______________________________________________
eia mailing list
eia@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia