decoding the flank

[frondpetalson]

forgive my stupidity - am seeking clarification
(and praying for the return of WRG 5th or 6th)

pls check and correct my attempt to untangle Arcane Barkerish

there appear to be 4 broad classes of "flank-like" type strategems/options/tactics/ploys

(1) DELAYED COMMAND (also apparently called "Delayed Arrival", but not on p31, as advertised)
* 0-1 comds may delay
* may NOT include C-in-C
* immediate arrival on raw PIP of 5,6 in first 4 bounds, immediate arrival on raw PIP of 4,5,6 thereafter (except ally, who is unchanged in thie respect)
* if either side uses "Delayed Start" (a possible reference to the "Delayed Battle" strategem?), all Delayed Commands arrive on "one less"
   (presumably meaning, 4,5,6 and then 3,4,5,6 after 4th bound (except for ally, who is unchanged in this respect))
* arrives on own REAR EDGE, 800+p from any side edge

(2) FLANK MARCH
* 0-2 comds may flank march
* only 1 comd may arrive on each edge (L-R) .. target edge must be recorded for each flank marching comd in Deployment stage 1
* may NOT include C-in-C
* immediate arrival on raw PIP of 6 in first 4 bounds, immediate arrival on raw PIP of 5,6 thereafter (except for ally, who is unchanged in this respect)
* if either side uses "Delayed Start" (a possible reference to the "Delayed Battle" strategem?), all Flank Marches arrive on "1 less"
   (presumably meaning, 5,6 and then 4,5,6 after 4th bound (except for ally, who is unchanged in this respect))
* when arriving, check if opponent has a flank on the same side. smaller comd is "driven back", both if equal size
* "driven back" = train is lost (definition of train is hazy at best - seems to refer to Bgge & Arty ?)
   ... others arrive in "own half" of specified flank, elts without PIPS lost
  ... errr, since when do you need PIPS (per element or group) to arrive on flank AT ALL ? what does this mean?
* otherwise, arrives on opponent half of specified flank, or (if land, on a dice of 6) nearest 400p of rear edge
* may not arrive in BUA
* front rank elements arrive and conduct march or tactical move (NB: no mention of required PIP expenditure!)

(3) FLANK ATTACK
* this is a strategem - available only to brilliant general, as brilliant stroke
* cost 5AP ... EVIDENTLY cost in incurred, even though invoked as a Brilliant Stroke ?
   (ambiguous Barkerese, which elsewhere seems to infer that a 12.5AP brilliant stroke can allow a strategem "otherwise not available")
* involves a "short hook" (presumably this obscure metaphor refers to a less divergent flanking route?)
* ambiguously, this strategem JUST MIGHT allow the C-in-C himself to perform the flank attack ?
   (otherwise, how could an Alex.Imp companion flanking move EVER happen, with any modicum of control?)
* arrives "one less" (argh ... there's THAT IMPRECISE PHRASE again!)
   this seems to mean:
   arrives on 5,6 in first 4 bounds, or on 4,5,6 therefater (except for ally, who is unchanged in this respect)
   BUT: if there is a Delayed Start (= Delayed Battle?) 4,5,6, or 3,4,5,6 after 4th bound (except for ally, who is unchanged in this respect)
   AND ALSO: a flank attacking comd lead by a brilliant general (does this infer a C-inC can?) can also arrive on "one less)
   but is this cumulative? ... infers that:
   Brilliant General, Flank Attacking, under Delayed Start conditions, can arrive on 3,4,5,6 or 2,3,4,5,6 after 4th bound (except for ally, who is unchanged in this respect)
   BUT it costs the Brilliant General 1 of his brilliant strokes to do so (ie: to reduce arrival dice to "one less")
* an inert general (who cannot call a flank attack AT ALL) needs to dice the correct arrival number TWICE, (ie: in a 2nd bound ? or twice in a row? or in successive bounds ?)
   presumably a brilliant C-in-C could have dispatched an inertly lead command on a flank attack
   presumably this injunction effects inert generals under ALL flank-type conditions, or is it just in flank attack (which he cant have called anyway!)? ... the text is most vague in this regard


(4) DELAYED BATTLE (possibly the same thing as "Delayed Start"?)
* this is a strategem - available to inert, normal & brilliant generals
* cost 5AP for inert general, else costs 10AP
* POSSIBLY (as with all strategems) could be invoked without cost as a Brilliant Stroke ? (ambiguous Barkerese)
* POSSIBLY (if = "delay start") increases the chance of flank march & delay command (as described above)
* army must have fortified camp or 2FE (ie: >800px600p size) fortified BUA
* not available if battle otherwise starts before sunrise
* after deployment, add D6 hours to start time (use higher figure if both sides delay)
(aside from possible weather/visibility effects, the increased chance of flankers etc seems the ONLY advantage)

____________________________
has anyone managed to summarise this mess into concise and precise ENGLISH?
god forbid, could this have been TABULATED?

[Aloysius the Gaul]

pls check and correct my attempt to untangle Arcane Barkerish

there appear to be 4 broad classes of "flank-like" type strategems/options/tactics/ploys
(2) FLANK MARCH
* if either side uses "Delayed Start" (a possible reference to the "Delayed Battle" strategem?), all Flank Marches arrive on "1 less"
   (presumably meaning, 5,6 and then 4,5,6 after 4th bound (except for ally, who is unchanged in this respect))
* when arriving, check if opponent has a flank on the same side. smaller comd is "driven back", both if equal size
* "driven back" = train is lost (definition of train is hazy at best - seems to refer to Bgge & Arty ?)

Train is defined on page 4, as are "foot", "mounted" amd "Naval" - train is baggage, artillery and war wagons.

... others arrive in "own half" of specified flank, elts without PIPS lost
  ... errr, since when do you need PIPS (per element or group) to arrive on flank AT ALL ? what does this mean?

I don't see where it says that - on page 31 it says that elements that are driven back and lack PIPs to arrive are lost.

* front rank elements arrive and conduct march or tactical move (NB: no mention of required PIP expenditure!)

There is no need to mention PIP expenditure in this section - page 27 says that 1 PIP is expended for each tactical move, with appropriate modifiers as listed.

(3) FLANK ATTACK
* this is a strategem - available only to brilliant general, as brilliant stroke
* cost 5AP ... EVIDENTLY cost in incurred, even though invoked as a Brilliant Stroke ?

yes.

   (ambiguous Barkerese, which elsewhere seems to infer that a 12.5AP brilliant stroke can allow a strategem "otherwise not available")

You're indulging in a bit of "Barkeresse" yourself - I have no idea what you are talking about - there are no 12.5 AP costs for anything.

* involves a "short hook" (presumably this obscure metaphor refers to a less divergent flanking route?)

it's a description of what it is - what's the problem?

* ambiguously, this strategem JUST MIGHT allow the C-in-C himself to perform the flank attack ?

how do you get that?  "It is treated like a normal flank march, except..." - CinC's can not flank march, and the exceptions do not allow it for this either - perfectly clear IMO.

   (otherwise, how could an Alex.Imp companion flanking move EVER happen, with any modicum of control?)[/i]

when did they do anything like this?

* arrives "one less" (argh ... there's THAT IMPRECISE PHRASE again!)

no it does not.  It says "the dice score needed to arrive is reduced by 1" - nothing imprecise about it at all IMO.

IMO there's nothing imprecise about "arrives on one less" either.

   

this seems to mean:
   arrives on 5,6 in first 4 bounds, or on 4,5,6 therefater (except for ally, who is unchanged in this respect)
   BUT: if there is a Delayed Start (= Delayed Battle?) 4,5,6, or 3,4,5,6 after 4th bound (except for ally, who is unchanged in this respect)
   AND ALSO: a flank attacking comd lead by a brilliant general (does this infer a C-inC can?) can also arrive on "one less)
   but is this cumulative? ... infers that:
   Brilliant General, Flank Attacking, under Delayed Start conditions, can arrive on 3,4,5,6 or 2,3,4,5,6 after 4th bound (except for ally, who is unchanged in this respect)
   BUT it costs the Brilliant General 1 of his brilliant strokes to do so (ie: to reduce arrival dice to "one less")

All the modifiers are cumulative - there's nothing to suggest otherwise and PB has said so on hte e-mail list.

So yes you can get a -1 for a delayed start, and a -1 for a brilliant stroke by a flank marching sub/ally, and a -1 for a flank marching sub after the 4th move AND a -1 for a Brilliant CinC designating a flank attack - but note that to get all these you need 2 brilliant generals - a CinC to order the flank attack, and a Sub-Gen to be on it.

* an inert general (who cannot call a flank attack AT ALL) needs to dice the correct arrival number TWICE, (ie: in a 2nd bound ? or twice in a row? or in successive bounds ?)   presumably a brilliant C-in-C could have dispatched an inertly lead command on a flank attack

An inert CinC cannot order a flank attack, but an inert Ally might be sent on one.


 

 presumably this injunction effects inert generals under ALL flank-type conditions, or is it just in flank attack (which he cant have called anyway!)? ... the text is most vague in this regard

Again there's nothing vague about it at all - "It is treated like a normal flank march, except..." - there's nothing in the exceptions specifically relating to inert generals.

(4) DELAYED BATTLE (possibly the same thing as "Delayed Start"?)

yes.

* POSSIBLY (as with all strategems) could be invoked without cost as a Brilliant Stroke ? (ambiguous Barkerese)

not that I can see - why do you think this may be the case?

* POSSIBLY (if = "delay start") increases the chance of flank march & delay command (as described above)

Yes.

____________________________
has anyone managed to summarise this mess into concise and precise ENGLISH?
god forbid, could this have been TABULATED?

IMO you are picking holes in a lot of places where there are no holes to be picked - some of your points are reasonable, but as I've indicated above IMO some of them seem to be using "barkeresse" as an excuse for not reading the rules properly.

[toby]

This is actually quite a good tabulation if corrected to remove the bits which are wrong (like the Train definition).

The Delayed Battle/Delayed Start bit is unfortunate and hopefully will get picked up in a reprinting.

If you want to tidy up your tabulation, I would be more than happy to put it in the FAQs section of the main website as I think it summarises the options quite well.

Its worth bearing in mind Phil's distinction between a flank march and a flank attack - he stated this on the list at some point but I'm not sure it made it into the rules.

He envisaged a Flank Attack as being a part of the main army that was detached to zoom around some hills or woods and attack the enemy from the side. The idea here is that they are on a 4 hour route march or something like that.

The Flank March is to represent another army coming up from another direction, rather than a detached part of the main army. So it would be the other Consular Roman army at Telamon or something like that.

Delayed command is you keeping part of your army back as a reserve to commit once you have seen your opponents plan.

Toby

[frondpetalson]

thank you Aloysius

Train is defined on page 4, as are "foot", "mounted" amd "Naval" - train is baggage, artillery and war wagons.

OK - gotcha - missed that one, thanks

I don't see where it says that - on page 31 it says that elements that are driven back and lack PIPs to arrive are lost

as i wrote ... if they are NOT driven back (my preceding bullet) THEN they arrive, but are lost if they have no PIPS - BUT there does not seem to a clear requirement for them to SPEND any in arriving
... thus my question ... which you have glossed over

You're indulging in a bit of "Barkeresse" yourself - I have no idea what you are talking about - there are no 12.5 AP costs for anything.

no need for nastiness friend ~
12.5 = half the cost of "brilliance" - ie: the price (in AP) of expending one brilliant move
 ...clear?

* involves a "short hook" (presumably this obscure metaphor refers to a less divergent flanking route?)
it's a description of what it is - what's the problem?

its a non standard term ... why not just say "flanking by a shorter route" which is precise and clear
what the blazes is a "short hook" except for some arcane boxing move or a piece of fishing tackle?

* ambiguously, this strategem JUST MIGHT allow the C-in-C himself to perform the flank attack ?

how do you get that?  "It is treated like a normal flank march, except..." - CinC's can not flank march, and the exceptions do not allow it for this either - perfectly clear IMO.

I "get that" by READING THE WORDS ON THE PAGE ... which are imprecise ... thus my question
I was seeking clarification, not abuse

   (otherwise, how could an Alex.Imp companion flanking move EVER happen, with any modicum of control?)[/i]

when did they do anything like this?

and thus they MAY NEVER be permitted to do so in a DBMM game?
your logic evades me

It says "the dice score needed to arrive is reduced by 1" - nothing imprecise about it at all IMO.

a PRECISE phrase would say something like
reduced from "4,5,6" to "3,4,5,6"
THAT leaves no margin for misunderstanding

a vague 'reduction' without clarification as to applicability, cumulation etc is not entirely helpful

All the modifiers are cumulative - there's nothing to suggest otherwise and PB has said so on hte e-mail list.

absence of clarification is not equivalent to the evasion of confusion
I cannot do logical calculus with whay PB "did not say" ...
but thank you for advising of the even more obscure e-mail list posting - Ive read most of 'em, but managed to miss that one
silly me !

An inert CinC cannot order a flank attack, but an inert Ally might be sent on one.

as I believe i said

* POSSIBLY (as with all strategems) could be invoked without cost as a Brilliant Stroke ? (ambiguous Barkerese)

not that I can see - why do you think this may be the case?

as stated earlier, a brilliant stroke may be used to perform a strategem NOT OTHERWISE POSSIBLE ... sounds vague to me, especially when there's costings involved

some of your points are reasonable

most generous - thank you

IMO some of them seem to be using "barkeresse" as an excuse for not reading the rules properly.

a little unkind and not entirely justified as a reply to a set of seriosu questions IMHO
I didnt realise the ancients community had sunk to the same level as other online groups, where the Guru's are beyond question, and those seeking genuine help are to be ridiculed for their lack of faith

as for "reading properly", sadly my literacy end with the English language (and a very little Japanese) - please forgive my shortcomings

[Platypus]

Frondpetalson might be a bit confused about how delayed arrival works.

Delayed arrival (p31) refers to both Flank Marching and Delayed commands. Note that a CinC can not do either.

All commands either flank marching or deayed, must use PIPs to move onto the board. Delayed commands use the 5,6 (or 4) that they throwed. Flank marching commands get the PIP score from the next bound. Reg still can't be "allocated" PIPs since they are not on the table yet. The last paragraph of the Delayed Arrival section tells you how to measure the moves onto the table. These moves cost PIPs.

Basically if you have both Mounted and Foot troops in a Flank Marching command, and you throw a 1 in that next bound, you are in trouble......

This it what it means when the rules say "any elements without PIPs to do so are lost".  Note that this is mentioned _again_ in the Stragglers section further down the page.

Delayed Start on p31 is a typo. Should be Delaying Battle. Name was changed in a draft and this was never picked up.

Hope this helps,
G^is,
JohnG

[Aloysius the Gaul]

I don't see where it says that - on page 31 it says that elements that are driven back and lack PIPs to arrive are lost

as i wrote ... if they are NOT driven back (my preceding bullet) THEN they arrive, but are lost if they have no PIPS - BUT there does not seem to a clear requirement for them to SPEND any in arriving
... thus my question ... which you have glossed over

I didn't gloss over anything, but I found your reasoning difficult to understand - you've cleared this one up tho.

you arrive at the table edge from a flank march - not on the table.  you must spend PIPs to move onto the table, measuring from the table edge.  Thus if you do not have enough PIPs to move all your troops on you lose those that cannot do so.

You're indulging in a bit of "Barkeresse" yourself - I have no idea what you are talking about - there are no 12.5 AP costs for anything.

no need for nastiness friend ~
12.5 = half the cost of "brilliance" - ie: the price (in AP) of expending one brilliant move
 ...clear?

If you think mentioning "barkerese" is nastiness then you shuold not do so yourself.

You complain about things not being explained, then introduce this concept of 12.5 AP's per brilliant stroke as if everyone should understand - yes it is clear now, but it would ahve been beter if you hadn't used it in the first place.

* involves a "short hook" (presumably this obscure metaphor refers to a less divergent flanking route?)
it's a description of what it is - what's the problem?

its a non standard term ... why not just say "flanking by a shorter route" which is precise and clear
what the blazes is a "short hook" except for some arcane boxing move or a piece of fishing tackle?

It is a standard term in DBMM because it is defined in DBMM, and because a "hook" is a perfectly reasonable military term for an outflanking move.

* ambiguously, this strategem JUST MIGHT allow the C-in-C himself to perform the flank attack ?

how do you get that?  "It is treated like a normal flank march, except..." - CinC's can not flank march, and the exceptions do not allow it for this either - perfectly clear IMO.

I "get that" by READING THE WORDS ON THE PAGE ... which are imprecise ... thus my question
I was seeking clarification, not abuse

I dont' see where they are imprecise and I don't see any abuse.  I asked you to identify where you get that idea from because I can't see it.

If you ask questions that are not clear then you should not be surprised if someone asks you to clarify them.

i still do not see how you can come to your conclusion that a CinC might be allowed to perform a flank march - what is the wording that makes you think this?

   (otherwise, how could an Alex.Imp companion flanking move EVER happen, with any modicum of control?)[/i]

when did they do anything like this?

and thus they MAY NEVER be permitted to do so in a DBMM game?

Huh?  Of course they can flank attack - yo jsut send the command they are in on such an attack.  They can't do it if their command is commanded by Alexander as a CinC tho, since a CinC cannot perform a flank attack.

your logic evades me

What logic??   I asked you a questin because I didn't understand your point, and again you have not explained yourself any further.

 

It says "the dice score needed to arrive is reduced by 1" - nothing imprecise about it at all IMO.

a PRECISE phrase would say something like
reduced from "4,5,6" to "3,4,5,6"
THAT leaves no margin for misunderstanding

a vague 'reduction' without clarification as to applicability, cumulation etc is not entirely helpful

I don't see anything vague about a reduction - if you need to score 1 less.  If the original score required was 6, then 1 less is 5.  If the original is 4 then 1 less is 3.

It can't be just "4,5,6 to 3,4,5,6" because there are several possible modifiers - it could be any of " 6 to 5,6", "5,6 to 4,5,6", and more.

All the modifiers are cumulative - there's nothing to suggest otherwise and PB has said so on hte e-mail list.

absence of clarification is not equivalent to the evasion of confusion

Wargame rules tell you what you can do - they cannot tell you everthing you cannot do because there are an infinite number of things yuo cannot do - you cannot use lasers, tiger 2's or machine gunes, you canot fight in space or on Mars, etc., etc.

If you were worreid about everything not mentioed then you would never play any games at all!

I cannot do logical calculus with whay PB "did not say" ...

and yet you do.  Every time you play the rules you happily accept the vast majority of things that the rule writer did not say, regardless of what period and who wrote them.

but thank you for advising of the even more obscure e-mail list posting - Ive read most of 'em, but managed to miss that one
silly me !

I presumed you would want soem indication of where to find Phil's answer - it is normal to reference where authoritative statements can be made to back them up, or would you be happy to accept my say so just because I posted my opinion here?  It's archived - feel free to look it up.

* POSSIBLY (as with all strategems) could be invoked without cost as a Brilliant Stroke ? (ambiguous Barkerese)

not that I can see - why do you think this may be the case?

as stated earlier, a brilliant stroke may be used to perform a strategem NOT OTHERWISE POSSIBLE ... sounds vague to me, especially when there's costings involved

Ah - I see.  well in the stratagems it says what brilliant strokes have to be made as stratagems.  The note that a brilliant stroke may allow a stratagem that cannot otherwise be performed is jsut a comment - it is not a rule that lets you make any stratagem avaialble as a brilliant stroke.  the costs of all stratagems are given in the stratagems - there is one that is allowed at 0 cost as a brilliant stroke, otherwise they all cost something.  Whether you consider the cost excessive on top of paying for a brilliant general is amatter of taste for you - I see in the battle reports that people are often using brilliant strokes - I haven't felt he need so far.

I don't know what you mean by "the guru's are beyond question" - even Phil Barker gets hammered when people think he's wrong.

[frondpetalson]

Thank you Platypus

(G as in Sgt.Geer perhaps ? )

its nice to have had a serious and informative reply
it is VERY much appreciated. Arigato!

An answer of this general form is ALL I had hoped for. It is most heartening to think there are still some civil people on the interweb. It certainly makes a nice change from being sanctioned by the clause-police when daring to have questions (ie, by those who have the wonderfully useful ability to criticise one for using some rhetorical device one never used and was, in fact, suggeting was poor practice!)

Its curious that some people are able to tell when PB is "making a comment" and when he is "stating a rule".
Sadly my personal edition of the rules lacked not only staples, but also the Dan Dare infrared-ink-marginalia and the Secret-Squirrel-decoding-glasses

ah... but I percieve that I've again made the fatal mistake of daring to post here, where apparently only recipients of those Secret-Squirrel-glasses may abide! - so I imagine I can expect some biting put-down to immediately follow this post, as has been the case to date I'll retire therefore, at the conclusion of this post, and seek my DBMM related answers and advise elsewhere.

so, best regards, dear monotreminous-one!
do paddle both far & safely
FP

Frondpetalson might be a bit confused about how delayed arrival works.

Delayed arrival (p31) refers to both Flank Marching and Delayed commands. Note that a CinC can not do either.

All commands either flank marching or deayed, must use PIPs to move onto the board. Delayed commands use the 5,6 (or 4) that they throwed. Flank marching commands get the PIP score from the next bound. Reg still can't be "allocated" PIPs since they are not on the table yet. The last paragraph of the Delayed Arrival section tells you how to measure the moves onto the table. These moves cost PIPs.

Basically if you have both Mounted and Foot troops in a Flank Marching command, and you throw a 1 in that next bound, you are in trouble......

This it what it means when the rules say "any elements without PIPs to do so are lost".  Note that this is mentioned _again_ in the Stragglers section further down the page.

Delayed Start on p31 is a typo. Should be Delaying Battle. Name was changed in a draft and this was never picked up.

Hope this helps,
G^is,
JohnG

[Aloysius the Gaul]

Its curious that some people are able to tell when PB is "making a comment" and when he is "stating a rule".
Sadly my personal edition of the rules lacked not only staples, but also the Dan Dare infrared-ink-marginalia and the Secret-Squirrel-decoding-glasses

Then let me illuminate the difference for you.

A rule says you must, shall or will do something.  It uses a word form called "imperative".  It does not require special glasses, and someone who can write perfectly good english as you can should have no problems with it.

There are vast sections of DBMM that are are comments and not rules - they include things like tactical advice, whether or not you double-base elements that do not have to be double based, introductions to rule sections that provide some background info - an examplewould be the first sentence for "Storming fortifications" -

Foot Assaulting PF are assumed to escalade with improvised ladders and use side arms, so are a special case for rear support.

-this is not a rule because it does not tell you what you can or cannot (or must or must not) do - it is background information - a coment.

There are many such introductory sentences at the start of sections - just looking at page 14 and 15 they are in "Planning PIP allocation", "Unreliable allies", Brilliant or inert generals", "Stratagems", "Scouting", "Feigned flight" and "Guides" - that's 7 out of 8 headings on those 2 pages that start with comments.

Rest assured that I shall continue to help your comprehension of DBMM, and hence the english language, to the best of my ability, despite your ingratitude.

[Doug M.]

But there are also significant parts where it is unclear what is an imperative. For example the use of a dice cup.

Many rules are couched in almost conversational terms. Essentially the use of the words May/Must would have much improved the set, (along with taking large vague chunks of background and advice out of the body of the rules themselves).

[Aloysius the Gaul]

If it is not imperative language then it is not a rule IMO - there is clear imperitive language in hundreds of places.  the dice cup sentence is not a rule - it is a comment.

Must/shall/will are not the only ways of indicating - jsut hte easiest ones to spot.  Eg in placing of terrain features the wording is:

The edges of the battlefield are numbered 1 to 4 clockwise from the defenders left.

this tells you what to do - it doesn't include must be/shall be/will be numbered - it just says what happens.

[Doug M.]

Ok, 'imperative language'  - but there are 'rules' that re not couched imperatively, and rules scattered in odd places. Want to know how El(X) work? well, you can't find out in the combat section, or under Gradings, no - you have to look at Troop Definitions, a section which for my mind should be in an appendix like the AP values, base sizes, etc...

[Aloysius the Gaul]

There are certainly rules scattered in various places, but my point is that if something is not imperitive then it is NOT a rule.

[madmike1]

I have to agree with most of the comments/complaints listed here.

I have been out of ancients since WRG 7 (started with WRG2) so that makes it about 20 years.  I am trying to get back into it with a friend but I have to be honest the way DBMM is written it is basically impossible for a newbie to get started without joining a club.  I write IT technical documents for a living and if I served up something in the format of how DBMM reads I would be sacked. 

Are there any plans to rewrite DBMM to make it accessible to the general public?  The way it stands at the moment I suspect that the only people able/willing to take up DBMM are experienced DBM players.   

I would be willing to pay 2 or 3 times the price for the rules if it contained lots of clear examples and explanations. 

[Aloysius the Gaul]

We're geting a lot of people "coming back" to ancients who havent' played for years, or even 1st timers, because of DBMM.

the language issue is non-existant IMO - most objections come from people who started with a preconception or bias that PB's rules are always hard to read, then if they have trouble understanding anything at all it becomes confirmation bias.

[Doug M.]

'The Language issue is non-existent"? What planet are you living on? The rulebook is a complete schemozzle, albeit not as bad as DBM.

Rules regarding the same content, eg command pips are scattered in three separate locations, vast amounts of content should be relegated to appendices, the 'X' rules are in the definitions - not the rules, the combat table is execrable.

Why wont you listen to people who work as technical writers, (a small part of my own job too), and actually hear them?