Cross-References in section 8 of the Rules

[Graham Willmott]

Making a bid for the dullest post on the forum here...

Some of the cross-references in section 8 of the rules appear to be wrong. There are also some minor inconsistencies between the rules in section 8 and section 9. I think that:
•   Page 80, 15 e) should refer to 9.3G 2, not 9.3C
•   Page 80, 16 should refer to 9.3K, not 9.3G. More seriously, the conditions specified on page 80 partially differ from those in section 9.3K on page 114.
•   Page 80, 17 should refer to 9.3I 3, not 9.3E.
•   Page 81, 18 should refer to 9.3H, not 9.3D.
•   Page 83, 1 should refer to 9.4E 2, not 9.4A.
•   Page 83, 2, third bullet should refer to 9.4D 2, not 9.4B.
•   Page 83, 4 should refer to 9.4I, not 9.4C.
•   Page 84, 5.1 should refer to 9.4J, not 9.4D.
•   Page 84, 5.2 should refer to 9.4K, not 9.4E.
•   Page 84, 5.3 should refer to 9.6H, not 9.6F.
•   Page 84, 5.4.1 should refer to 9.3L, not 9.3H.
•   Page 84, 6.1 should refer to 9.4F, not 9.4A.
•   Page 84, 6.2 should refer to 9.6H 4, not 9.6G.
•   Page 84, 7.1 should refer to 9.5B, not 9.5A.
•   Page 85, 7.3 should refer to 9.5G, not 9.5J.
•   Page 85, 8.2 should refer to 9.3L, not 9.3H.
•   Page 85, 8.2 third bullet should refer to 9.3H, not 9.3D. You may also need to look again at the wording about foot SuGs, given that 9.3 H6 contains exceptions to the rules on foot SuGs in 9.3 H5.2.
•   Page 86, Shooting Phase, 1.1 should refer to 9.6I, not 9.6H
•   Page 86, Shooting Phase, 1.2 should refer to 9.6H, not 9.6G
•   Page 86, Shooting Phase, 2.3 - should there be a reference to the possibility to control the pursuit with an F1 action (cf. page 87 3.3)?
•   Page 86, Movement Phase, 1 should refer to 9.5B, not 9.5A.
•   Page 87, Fighting Phase, 1 should refer to 9.5B, not 9.5A.
•   Page 87, End of Turn Phase, 3 should refer to 9.9F, not 9.9E. In addition, the rule on two tests for UGs with more than 8 bases does not appear in section 9.9F or 9.8B 6.

I'll go and do something more exciting now, like watching paint dry.

[Francis Small]

Now look what you did - I simply couldn't stop myself from posting:

p46, caption for 2nd picture: "can sometimes play and offensive role" should read: "an offensive"
p50, reference to "Appendix A" should read "Appendix 1".
p51, Barricades: "and give troops and advantage in combat." should read "an advantage"
p51, Fleet of Foot: "Troop move at" should read "Troops move at"
p58, caption: "Tuetoborg" (also p. 24 which reads "Teutoberg") should read "Teutoburg" (I think)
p62, A1: The end of the sentence has double colons – "commander∷" (picky, picky I know)
p62, section B: The numbering starts with 3, not 1.
p68, 1st paragraph, last sentence: "lost much the upset" should read "lost much to the upset".
p68, 2nd paragraph, first sentence: "Romans don't' care" – extraneous quote mark at end of "don't".
p69, last line on page: "and a special items are" should read "and special items are"
p77, The Fun, 1st bullet: "disagree the interpretation" should read "disagree over the interpretation"
   later... "where you can agree it" should read "where you can agree on it"
2nd bullet: "distractions form their" should read "distractions from their"
p77, Turn, Phases and Sub-phases, #1: "Refer this" should read "Refer to this"
p78, #5: I find the reference to "shooting phase (9.7A)" confusing, as shooting is covered in 9.6.
p79, #9: Reference to "9.3B" should read "9.3D".

...

p89, #1: Reference to "8.10" should read "9.10".
p90, #1: "and 1-3 sub-general." should read "1-3 sub-generals."
p92, D.1: Reference to "KaB test on a general (9.5B)" should read (I think) "9.8B".
p93 #2, 7th bullet: "waiting for a replacement general arrives" should read "...general to arrive".
p93 #3, 2nd bullet:" I think "talented general 3-card" should read "talented 3-card general".
p94, E.1: "Subgeneral can" should read "Subgenerals can".
p105, E: "Done well block moves creates" should read "block moves create".
p108, F, 2nd bullet: Reference to "8.1D" should read "9.1D".
p113, I.4: Reference to "8.3D" should read "9.3H".
p120, F: Sub-paragraphs for paragraph 1 start with 6, as in 6.1; likewise those for paragraph 2 start with 7.
p121, H.3.1: The paragraph ends with the sentence fragment "...are executed in the z".
p127, 3.1: Reference to "9.6G" should read "9.6B" (or 9.4K?)
p127, 3.2: Reference to "9.3H" should read "9.3L".
Both 9.3F and 9.3L are entitled "Moving Chargers"
p152, M.3: "which is the determined" should read "which is determined".
p155, B.1: Reference to "9.4E" should read "9.4K".
p160 H.2: All 3 bullets: "equal or greater than to" should read "equal to or greater than"
p166, 4 & 4.1: Reference to "9.3H" should read "9.3L".
p166, 6: Reference to "8.3D" should read "9.3H", and reference to "8.8B" should read "9.8B".
p170 B.3.2: Reference to "8.3D" should read "9.3H".
p179, 2.4: Reference to "8.7A" should read "9.7A".

[AntiokosIII]

As one of the proof readers of these rules and the proud owner of a Samurai army, I am feeling the urge to commit seppuku at once.

[Graham Willmott]

Good job on spelling "seppuku". 

[SteveO]

Well spotted and I provided a similar list to Simon some time ago.😊 In fact, Simon recently announced on FB and the MeG podcast that a number of issues were going to be fixed in the reprint of the rules.

He also went to great lengths to reassure people that the rules would remain unchanged and that the reprint would simply tidy up some of the language.

I have not cross-referenced your suggestions with mine to see if I missed anything because I don't really know which suggestions Simon accepted (they are his rules after all). More importantly, I understand the reprint process is already well advanced so there would not be much point in finding additional corrections now. Maybe Simon can confirm?

All that said, I want to emphasise that MeG is a great set of rules that I really enjoy using (when I'm not in lockdown). I would not want to appear negative just because I highlighted some editorial issues.

Cheers, Steve

[Simon Meg-Meister]

All the ones fed in were picked up in the reprint.
But yes no rule changes at all.
Typos, erros and a bit of language improvement for added calrity.

S

[Laurence]

Simon,
I have seen this post just now...When will the reprint be available?

[Laurence]

Simon, even if no rule has changed at all as you wrote, it is simply a nogo to distribute such rulebook full of mistakes, in particular those Graham has pointed out.

Also the errors explained in Errata V9 shows that there is a huge lack of proof-reading and cross-checking.

At least I would have expected your excuse in the Author's section of the forum...



Would you please reply concerning the reprint? Do I understand correctly, is there a reprint in process and if so, again spending money for a "clean" book instead continuing with the one purchased, now full of hand-written corrections?