Am surprised to find quite a few typos. Is there a running list somewhere I should post them to?


Jeff

In the rules or on the cards and game itself? Hope there's not a "People's Replublic of Rome" next to "Chili" on the board.



edit: I am of course referencing the 2 (at least?) nasty typo's on GMT's 1st print of Twilight Struggle's map. Yes, I know Chile (Nor "Chili") is nowhere near Rome nor Carthage. Thanks to all who clarified this for me in private messages and emails.

I wouldn't be too happy if 'Chile' was spelled correctly on the map either.

I'm compiling a list of them myself. I plan to email them to VG so they can hopefully incorporate them into the next printing and/or living rules.

I'm halfway through the rulebook and have 7 so far.

Yes, please do email us with any errata. I also welcome people to post them in this thread as well, although please be sure to check that someone else hasn't already posted it first.

page 6, section 2.2
double colon after "COMBAT UNITS"

page 8, section 5.2
Period missing at end of sentence

page 8, section 5.5
The word "ttribal" needs to lose one of its "t"s

page 9, section 6.4
Third sentence contains the word "turn" instead of "year"

page 12, section 10.2, item #7
Period missing after "(14.)"
"However" should be capitalized

page 12, section 10.5
There is a space missing after the comma in the second sentence

page 13, MOUNTAIN PASS ATTRITION section
The -2 modifier here doesn't match the -1 modifier shown on the Attrition Table

page 13, STRAITS section
The words "Massena" do not match the space "Messana" on the map

page 17, section 14.1
The last three ways in which players may draw BCs are each missing their period (or it may be the case that the first four need to have their periods removed)

page 17, ISLAND PROVINCES section
"Baleric" is misspelled

That's as far as I got in the rules last night....

Nobody spot the annoying repetition on the Summary Sheet yet? That was just about the first thing I noticed after opening the box. (Since my 1st edition does not have a summary sheet, I looked at it with great interest.) The rules have it right, but it does not look so good on a reference sheet...

In the Reinforcements (6.) section, it says:
- 1 CU with any General in Hispania (or in New Carthage) if New Carthage is Carthaginian controlled
- 1 CU with any General in Hispania (or in New Carthage) if New Carthage is Carthaginian controlled

One of these should of course be:
- 1 CU with any General in Hispania (or in New Carthage) if the province of Baetica is Carthaginian controlled

Wow, maybe before I send research articles out for publication I should use the BBG members to proof read my work. Sounds like they are better at catching things than my current editor! (I am not being sarcastic...I am being serious).

Perhaps some of the game companies should think about posting their final rules before print online so people can proof read them.

Maybe it's a bonus alternate-history scenario for the preorder customers: Hannibal conquers South America!

It's the Attrition table on the board that is wrong; the rules are correct.

But here are a few more:

Page 10:
Red text example between the two cards. "The type of circle around the number shows who may use the event (7.4)." (7.4) refernces "Ending the Strategy Phase" I belive it should be (8.3) which talks about events and the color-coded circle.

EDIT 2: Same example says you can place the "number of PSs" - should be PCs

The Strategy cards refer to "OCs" (for example #5 Native Guide is the first). The rule book defines them as "OPs." One or the other should be changed.

Annoying repetition on page 11:
First paragraph:
"Playing a Counter Event does not count as your normal play; you must still play the next Strategy Card (if you have one). In effect, playing a Counter Event does not count as your normal play. When it is your turn to play, you must still play another Strategy Card (if you have one). In effect, playing a Counter Event may mean you have nothing to do in the later plays of Strategy Phase." 2nd and 3rd sentance should be deleted.

EDIT2:
Annoying repetition on Page 14:
10.12 Nero Perhaps the two sentances could be combined to state that "Nero, and any CUs with him, has the special ability..."

EDIT2:
Page 15 Example (1) under 11.6
New Carthage (port modifier) should be "-2" not "2"

Page 22 - a little confusing:
19.1 Political control
"A player controls a Province if he controls the majority of the spaces in a Province (having the majority of the PCs in a province is not by itself sufficient for Political Control.)" Seems contradictory until you realize it is trying to say you must have a majority of the spaces but a majority of the occupied spaces is not by itself sufficient. Could be worded better to be crystal clear.

Page 23 and Seige table:
Section 20 makes it sound like the only difference between Seiges and Subjugation is that one is against a walled city and one is against a tribe. The terms "seige" and "seige points" are used when dealing with subjugation as well. The board then states that the Carthaginians get -1 in seiges. Is this just "seiges" or "subjugations" as well.

More on this topic here: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/235375

EDIT2:
Summary Sheet:
Personally, being a new player, I would have liked to see the Order of Play listed. Or at least some how call out the sections that correspond to the order of play - Like "Reinforcements" in CAPS or preceeded by a "I."

Change of Command (18.2) - Would have been nice to see the results summar "1-3 No change; 4-6 Change"

Walled Cities & Tribes (20.1 & 20.9) - States in the 4th bullet point that "Tribes are similar to Major Cities..." "Major Cities" are not defined, should be "Walled Cities"

Victory Check Phase (22.) - Should indicate the game is over on the last turn.

Sudden Death Victory (23.) - Should have listed "Sues for peace" as another condition of losing.

EDIT: Edited for, ahem, typos.
EDIT 2: Adding a few more.

Certainly feasible within the context of a pre-ordering system of publication. Ostensibly, however, this is the province (and responsibility) of the publisher. Typos that do not actually alter potential interpretation (a missed capitalisation, or no space following a comma) are not matters for great concern (in games rules). Things such as the rules and charts on the map not agreeing are. I personally would have waited far longer (I'm not one of those who has been clammouring "where's my Hannibal!" in the threads here), if it had meant zero errata. Then, again, after 40+ years in the hobby, I would have to wonder if I had died and gone to Heaven

A couple more pieces of errata:

On page 13 under 10.6, the heading OTHER AFFECTS should be OTHER EFFECTS.

Similarly, on page 14 under 11.6, the phrase should be "-1 if the Carthaginian Naval Victory (Event #29) is in effect" (not "...is in affect").

Mild errata like this we can all live with while we enjoy the game (those who have it at this point). But I think that game companies should have English teachers proofread the rules for spelling, syntax and what not. Our breed is quite good at finding the mistakes of others while we miss those of our own doing. Still, another pair