Is it just me? Or are AH's rules text efficient shite?

billyz wrote:

Hmmm... just spoke to a friend of mine at work that is an old school, and avid wargamer. He explained the quasi necessity of legal format when it comes those big honking historical simulations where clarity is the imperitive. Chiming in with with what Uba said, he explained that it also considerably lessens the downtime involved in looking up some obscure "chromy" rule that only comes up every so often.

Alright. I give. Legal format make perfect sense for big games.

But I'm still sticking to my guns when it comes to medium heavy games. the best example I can think of is Battlelore/CC:A. They're both using the same system but Battlelore's ruleboook blew CC:A's out of the water both in ease of learning and in ease of use.

I had no problems with the CC:A Rulebook - what does Battlelore have that makes it better? Is it mostly just examples of play?

I do like when rulebooks have extensive examples of play or examples of how a mechanic works (with pictures).

There is a paragraph section in Storm over Arnhem that basically sums up as "YOU CAN'T CHEAT" (8.18 for those referencing at home)

It's a very wordy rulebook for what seems a fairly straightforward game.

Avalon Hill seems like a pretty weird company. I was reading the Storm over Arnhem issue of General earlier today where a few people had written in to complain a bit, and the editorial response was basically "YOU ARE PIG IGNORANT, AND HERE IS WHY" and it didn't try and sugarcoat the response at all. I enjoyed reading a company bullishly standing up for itself and not caring if it lost a customer or two into the bargain.

I also like AHs fascination with font size 6 or what ever it is.

I'm real late on replying to this one but the AH rulebooks aren't meant to be a fun read. Pure rules.