The title sort of says it all. I don't really have trouble with the editing and format; I believe it's superior to a lot of other games I've seen and played, learning from the errors of others. Having done both game writing and editing, I am honesty curious to explore other opinions on what others would see as wrong, because I believe years of gaming experience may have numbed me to the flaws that others perceive (I'm so used to bulling my way through loads of rules refuse…).

So please do speak up. I'll never learn anything trammeled in with my own opinions.

Warboss Krag said:

Format? No the book has ance format and layout, its visually pleasing.

Editing? Are you kidding, it says FFG on the cover which means "yeah, we didnt edit this book".

Parts of rules are missing and many examples are unclear (confusing enough to cause mass arguments on how they play)

Right, I grant that there are confusing items within the book, areas where there have not been enough explanation. Not surprising, really. If I may inquire, what other games are you using as a comparison. Mind you, I'm not disagreeing, I merely want to establish what you're using for comparison, as contrasting to my own comparison basis.

Battlesystem, 1989 for one. Wargods of Aegyptus for another. While each may have their own issues, its rare that I read abook from any other company that has as many errors or as many stand out errors. Sure all games, companies and what not have errors and flaws and problems, but FFG is the master of bad copy editing.

I think I understand what your saying Warboss Krag, I have mainly lived in smaller communities so usually the only war games if any are what are normally considered the largest games which are some of the worst when it comes to editing and format. Also from my other experiences with FFG, they tend to do this a lot as of late because Deathwatch and the other 40k RPGs are full of errors. Some of their older stuff Decent and Tides of Iron aren't as bad though.

I'd have to agree that the book needs clarification and it needs an official stamp from FFG stating that they are working on it or some form of communication stating that they have at the very least read our comments. Perhaps they did not realize that a game like this would require constant supervision as it does with other war games.

I'm going to have to be somewhat reserved in that my first game of warfare will be this coming Friday but I have played tactics and many other wargames for quite sometime now. It's just that reading the book is difficult because of all the page jumps. Also some rules are very wide and encompassing while others appear this way on the surface but only affect one or two units in a given faction.

Some hints or tips from FFG or even the playtest group would be appreciated as well. Especially on the axis side where at least it seems a lot of the negativity is coming from.

Also a place to ask rules questions and have them answered in a timely manner would be great. We should not be waiting a week and counting to get official answers to questions here on the forums.

And I have to comment on this as FFG is notorious for being quiet on their own forums but why have the forums if you are going to occasionally use it as a communication to your customer base. Otherwise it's just cheap advertising and aids the slow disoloution of a game like this which needs the constant attention of an empowered moderator.

Wargods of Aegyptus! You mean someone else in the world read it? From the reaction it got, I assumed I was one of the very few indeed…

As for complaints about the 40K RPG line and its editing, I don't think Perecles could talk FFG's way out of that hole. Each book seems to have been written by at least three separate authors and thrown together into some sort of blender by way of 'editing.' Bad show.

For the price - after all, a >160-page book for 2/3 the price of a 400+ page book? - charged for Warfare, would it have killed FFG to at least repeat various special ability rules near each troop list section? Yes, it's repetition, and there's an onus against that in publishing circles - it's usually accused of being padding - but that feature would have been very useful during the game. As it stands, I've got to permanently bookmark the 50s page sections, since I'm referring to it so much.

Back to Wargods, I think I see the point in that comparison. A lot less white space on the pages, a lot more information. Drier, though, desert dry. With the emphasis nowadays on trying to make games accessable to those who don't want to plow through what could be considered college text level, I can see why Wargods might have been unpopular. Pity.

I wonder if that's the issue, Cambers wrote the core, someone adds on and so on. But it's the feel I get, is it a horrible game no, I enjoy it I just don't understand the simple typos and heavy play testing by veteran gamers and rule lawyers would have fixed any of the other uncertainy. I know when someone writes they write in a manner that makes sense to them but that's why you have someone not involved with what you do read it afterwards to make sure it conveys the same meaning.

SGTManuel said:

Thats exactly the problem. They hired a freelancer to do the skeleton of the system and then to save money they handed if off to one of their own full time employees. And Ive never been impressed by anything Mack Martin has done at FFG. (Granted, he inherited a dying Dark Heresy from Ross Watson, and then Rogue Trader and those products just got worse and worse right on up to Bleak Crusade).

But I have a feeling we will see a FAQ/Eratta in the near future, by Christmas a repring of Warfare with the updates in it and rule-options in Zverograd.

Eventually, the lines are going to re-merge and you will have 5 pages of warfare conversions or rules in the back of Tactics releases, or vice versa.