I just had to "go" there!

I couldn't help myself.  After listening to the WWPD podcast and then wading in on the discussion regarding rules, I just popped.

I am getting pretty frustrated with rules and interpretations.  I am THE FIRST to admit that I am by no means a rules expert.  Quite the opposite.  If you want proof, read my earlier posts!!

But I have an issue with the fact that MALFTF is longer than the rulebook.  I repectfully disagree with another poster that says that is not the case.  Yes, MALFTF has to repeat the questions.  But the rulebook has all those pretty pictures and boxes!!  And they are very good pictures!!

But here is my post (reprinted with my own permission):

=================================
Consider this an open letter to Battlefront.

I just posted on the topic regarding aircraft concealment and I used an analogy that is really troubling me.

The rules of golf are fairly short and are published as a pamphlet / book in the USA (USGA). The page size is smaller than the soft cover FoW rulebook and my copy is bound together by staples (granted it is a little old).

But the clarification to the rules look like the Encyclopedia Brittanica. The test to be a rules official is very difficult because of the rules exceptions and clarifications.

The FoW rulebook is a good size. But MALFTF is bigger!! You must remember that the rules have extra "content" at the end. So we have rules, then clarification to the rules that are even longer.

Now do not get me wrong - I think Phil has done a really, really good job with rules that make the game fun to play. And I am not looking to make more rules or complicated rules. I do need a reminder periodically that FoW is a game. However, I would like concise and clear rules.

But a game that has 103 pages of rules clarifications, followed by 42 pages of rules clarifications of the add-on books just seems to be a little "off." The last thing I want to do in a tournament is pull out the rulebook, then pull out MALFTF, then pull out emails from Phil to either prove or disprove a point. Imagine the lively discussion over concealment from aircraft during an actual tournament.

And what is puzzling even further is that great players and posters here are split on many of the rule interpretations. I trust my fellow players more than I trust my own interpretation of the rules. So when I see trusted players on two different sides, I start to scratch my head and think the issue is not the players, but rather the actual rules.

Just my (frustrated) opinion.

=================================

Ahhh.  I feel better now.