Ted Torgerson
United States
Chicago
Illinois
-
Here is the link to download the 1989 Rulebook.
EDIT: it is in the files section.
-
"L'état, c'est moi."
Canada
Vancouver
BC
Roger's Reviews: check out my reviews page, right here on BGG!
Who let this guy become wargame subdomain moderator anyways?
-
Had a quick skim just now. It looks really good, and I love the artwork for the icons and the power struggle cards.
I'll have a proper proofread of it later tonight!
-
Pete Hooper
United States
Machesney Park
Illinois
-
The book says "One countersheet". I thought it was supposed to come with two - one sheet for each side.
-
Ted Torgerson
United States
Chicago
Illinois
-
Yes we need to update that. Here are the front of the countersheets.
-
quelf elf
Spain
North Pole
-
Thanks, Ted!
-
Pete Hooper
United States
Machesney Park
Illinois
-
1989Game wrote: Yes we need to update that. Here are the front of the countersheets.
(picture removed in quote)
Very nice!
-
Wendell
United States
Arlington
Virginia
All the little chicks with crimson lips, go...
Hey, get your stinking cursor off my face! I got nukes, you know.
-
First comments, sections 1 and 2.
P.2 components, you already know it's two countersheets now, not one
2.1.7 example - uses abbreviation "SP" without first defining it (you define it in 2.3.1)
2.1.9 - only one space after the colon following "Scoring Boxes"; you use two spaces elsewhere
2.1.9 - use "VP" without first defining it
bottom pg 3 Support Markers, you refer to 2.1.4 but 2.3 may be a better place to refer (re control)
2.2.1 - in one place you refer to "Strategy card" and elsewhere "strategy card"
2.2 - You have TWO sections 2.2 - The Strategy Deck and The Power Struggle Deck (all of part 2 after 2.2 needs renumbering)
2.3.3 - need a period at the end
-
Wendell
United States
Arlington
Virginia
All the little chicks with crimson lips, go...
Hey, get your stinking cursor off my face! I got nukes, you know.
-
Comments, section 3
3.2 general comment (without seeing map) - are you consistent in using the English or local language versions of city/place names?
3.4 NOTE; do you need a word between "have" and "opponent's"? Maybe "your" or "the" or "any of your"? Or replace "opponent" with "opposing"?
Section 4
No comments
Section 5
Need a period at the end of the second sentence in the note preceding 5.1
5.2 example 5: should be "one Operation" (singular); also the word "event" after "Elena" should be capitalized; likewise at the very end of the sentence. (for consistency)
5.3 examples (and elsewhere such as in the example in 6.1.3, and in 6.2.4) you use "Ops" instead of "Operations", dunno if you want to be consistent
Section 6
6.2.3 "opponent SPs" is awkward...
-
Wendell
United States
Arlington
Virginia
All the little chicks with crimson lips, go...
Hey, get your stinking cursor off my face! I got nukes, you know.
-
comments section 7
7.3 headline you have "OPs" - elsewhere you use "Ops"; also 7.4
7.3.1 under Example, para 1, you refer to Germany, shouldn't it be "East Germany"? Ditto para 2. You use "East Germany" elsewhere.
7.3.2 - "Value" is capitalized, elsewhere it is not
-
Wendell
United States
Arlington
Virginia
All the little chicks with crimson lips, go...
Hey, get your stinking cursor off my face! I got nukes, you know.
-
Comments section 8
8.1.1, second sentence you have "Power Struggle Deck"; the word "deck" not capitalized elsewhere (including in first sentence of 8.1.1
8.1.3 in parentheses you don't capitalize "elites, intellectuals, workers" (referring to types of spaces) but those are capitalized elsewhere
8.3.2, Step 1, 3rd bullet - "Tactic Fails" should be italicized (at least, it is in Step 2, 3rd bullet)
Can't check some of the examples for winning power struggle VPs without seeing the charts.
The Havel quote between 8.4.5 and 8.4.6, you have a period after the date; the earlier Gorbachev and Honecker quotes don't. Later quotes from Hasselhoff, Thatcher, etc are not consistent either.
Section 9
none
Section 10
10.1 question (and 10.4) - don't check auto victory until Power Struggle is concluded - so it is OK in the process of calculating VP to go above 20 (or below -20), right? In other words if I have 18 VP and I'm supposed to gain 4 for something, and then lose 3 VP for something else, that is 18+4-3=19, not 18+4 hits the limit of 20, then 20-3=17, right?
10.3 "Note" - both "The Crowd Turns Against C" and "The Tyrant Is Gone" should be italicized
Section 11
Shouldn't Event card titles be italicized in each section?
-
Ted Torgerson
United States
Chicago
Illinois
-
Quote: 10.1 question (and 10.4) - don't check auto victory until Power Struggle is concluded - so it is OK in the process of calculating VP to go above 20 (or below -20), right? In other words if I have 18 VP and I'm supposed to gain 4 for something, and then lose 3 VP for something else, that is 18+4-3=19, not 18+4 hits the limit of 20, then 20-3=17, right?
Yes that's right.
-
Wendell
United States
Arlington
Virginia
All the little chicks with crimson lips, go...
Hey, get your stinking cursor off my face! I got nukes, you know.
-
Section 12
12.0 title you have a period at the end you don't need (not used elsewhere in section titles)
12.4 shouldn't the Events be italicized?
Card Notes
General comment - In the rules you have generally italicized the Event names - do you want to do so here?
General comment - inconsistent in whether to use periods in abbreviations like G.D.R. or S.E.P. or UDF or CSCE, or not. Suggest losing all the periods in those abbreviations
#1 - don't need the comma in "December, 1981" (elsewhere dates like "January 1989" are without commas)
#2 (and others) - would it be useful to include the * in the card title if the card event itself has an asterisk?
#5, 3rd sentence starts awkwardly, suggest "Poor participation risked..."
#8 you refer to Baker and Shevardnadze without saying who they are. (I know who they are but...)
#9 Spell out GDR (for those who don't know what it means)
#15 - want to give Honecker's first name?
#17 - in the sentence about Kiszczak, you don't need "but"; sentence beginning "The results" should be "permission for Solidarity to" not "permission that Solidarity could"
#20 - you misspelled "Deutsche mark" (hope the card is spelled right!)
#24 should be "East German" in the first sentence
#26 do you want to capitalize "student" and "intellectual" spaces as you largely did in the body of the rules?
#29 - don't need the comma in "January, 1969"; also later on do you mean "Czechs" or "Czechoslovakians"? (Not sure if you are drawing an internal Czech vs. Slovak distinction or not)
#35, 2nd sentence need "the" before "Afghan War"
#36 looks like an extra space in "first- degree"
#44 "Inflationary currency" is an odd and jarring phrase - not much comes up in google searches (except reference to people collecting currency from countries where hyperinflation has destroyed its value and a few crank websites). Suggest "Hyperinflation" (which you use in #93) instead - the problem was rising prices, not currency.
#46 - film and game titles should be italicized; also in #48
#52 - should be "Czechoslovakian" people assuming that Slovaks joined Czechs in mocking Jakes (hey, you'll hear it from Czechs and Slovaks if the distinction that [czech not equal czechoslovak] isn't clear!)
#56 - why the periods in "T.V."??? It's just TV, right?
#58 - Hey, Austria-Hungary is back? No? Should probably be "Austrian-Hungarian" border. Also in #74. (Incidentally, I have a friend who was one of the East Germans who crossed that border into West Germany in 1989...)
#61, what is the "S.E.D."?
#64 I know Dubcek was a Slovak, but he was Czechoslovakia's leader...
#76, be nice to have the date of the Bucharest Summit
#79, title 1989 should be italicized
#84 italicize "Gorbachev Charms the West" event name
#110 - actually the Belknap (the US navy vessel) was a cruiser not a destroyer...
-
Robert Schwieger
United States
Eugene
Oregon
-
Wow. I knew this game shared many aspects with Twilight Struggle but I wasn't expecting the Hannibal-style battle resolution. I'm eager to see how this one turns out.
-
-
Could this be our perfect fit game, Robert?
-
Mike Owens
United States
Georgetown
Texas
-
Sample Turn p. 24: The word "(red)" appears after Helsinki Final Act and Sajudis in the hand listing. I assume this is to indicate that the text should be red in the full-color rulebook -- which it is now, so the "(red)" is vestigial.
-
Mike Owens
United States
Georgetown
Texas
-
I think the example under 8.3.2 could be greatly improved or removed. Explaining that the Democrat's longest suit is a March so he selected a March-6 doesn't seem very illustrative of the cases in Step 1.
The definition of "Wild Card" isn't clear until you get to the sample turn. Maybe put a wild card (and a leader card) under 2.2.3 next to the illustration of the suited card?
-
Ted Torgerson
United States
Chicago
Illinois
-
I am afraid it is too late for these corrections, but I will ask. Thanks guys.
-
Wendell
United States
Arlington
Virginia
All the little chicks with crimson lips, go...
Hey, get your stinking cursor off my face! I got nukes, you know.
-
1989Game wrote: I am afraid it is too late for these corrections, but I will ask. Thanks guys.
Not even to correct having two sections 2.2? 
-
Ted Torgerson
United States
Chicago
Illinois
-
Good news.
Got this e-mail from Mark Simonitch at GMT Games:
Quote: Ted,
We have time to fix them. Make me a list and I'll do it.
Thanks,
Mark
-
-
I only confirm the difference between Czech and Czechoslovak. Inhabitants of Czechoslovakia were Czechs and Slovaks (+ other minorities). So I think it's OK to use term Czechoslovaks or Czechs and Slovaks.
But not a Czechoslovak nation - this was just a construct from the first Czechoslovak republic (1918-1938).
EDIT: Now I started to read the rules and I have found in section 3.3, that you have used "Czech writers" and "Czech Catholic Church". I am OK with Czech writers as it can be generalized that the group of writers around Václav Havel was mostly Czech. But I would rather change Catholic Church to Czechoslovak or to Slovak as I think Slovaks are historically more religious than Czechs and Catholic Church has even today more stable position in Slovakia than in Czech republic. Even the location is situated in the Slovak part of map.
But If there is no time to change it, I will somehow get through this. 
-
Mike Owens
United States
Georgetown
Texas
-
Ted, thanks a lot for your efforts with this game.
I wish more game companies would "crowdsource" proofreading like this. The public review of the map and rulebook will obviously pay dividends in the finished product. And I also hope that putting it out for review pays dividends for GMT in the form of greatly increased sales.
Can you also let us take a look at proofreading the cards?
-
Ted Torgerson
United States
Chicago
Illinois
-
Quote: Can you also let us take a look at proofreading the cards?
here is a link to download a pfd of the strategy cards for 1989 (low resolution):
http://tedtorgersonlaw.com/1989CardProofs1.pdf
-
László Horváth
Hungary
Veszprém
-
Hi,
Just read the rulebook, found this:
CARD NOTES
#18 POZSGAY...
is spelled incorrectly.
It is spelled correctly then onward in the text, but the card title is incorrect.
I looked at the low res images of the cards too, what You posted above, and unfortunately it is spelled incorrectly there too.
Hope there is time to fix it...
-
Ted Torgerson
United States
Chicago
Illinois
-
Thanks Laszlo. Yes, there is time to fix it.
-
Erik Strahler
Belgium
Brussels
-
I have a few quick comments that I don't think I saw addressed by others above.
Section 8
8.3.2 Would be nice to have "STEP 4. Repeat steps 1 to 3 until a winner is determined". I know how the system works, but wouldn't hurt to make it completely clear for those who've never seen how the Hannibal battle cards work.
8.3.3 It's stated when a player cannot concede. However, no mention is ever made of when a player CAN concede. The example shows a concession, but it doesn't seem to make sense. According to 8.3.3 if a player has a playable card, he must play it. In the example, he has an elite leader card and it is said that he can use it to match, but decides to concede instead. This doesn't make sense (to me at least).
8.4.4 and 8.4.5 Both sections state that when the democrat takes power, "remove the Power Struggle card permanently from the Strategy deck". I think this is meant to be "remove the scoring card permanently from the Strategy deck". can't really be a Power Struggle card, as those aren't in the Strategy deck anyway. This seems like it makes a big difference if my interpretation is correct.
-
|
|
Posted Mon Nov 14, 2011 10:42 pm
