This is where I made my error with Bug River..
I think perhaps [ and I checked with the Mrs so I know I’m right
] that US rule writers tend to use the explicit. What is, is.- Rules as Written – RAW. Whereas some European rule writers state what is NOT allowed. It is implied that everything else is ok….
I think perhaps [ and I checked with the Mrs so I know I’m right
] that US rule writers tend to use the explicit. What is, is.- Rules as Written – RAW. Whereas some European rule writers state what is NOT allowed. It is implied that everything else is ok….
So two examples. in the WAW85 image, an assumption was made as not rule ‘forbade’ an action as a subpoint [though there was a supernumerary rule to be applied].
In the Bug River game, the restrictions on Soviets early game are two specific things within a certain range of a certain location. What is implied, but not stated is the fact that ANY and ALL other actions anywhere for that given formation are on like Donkey Kong….
BIG difference that I did not catch until I glanced at the WAW85 page….a light bulb went off… I came back to the BR rule book, confirmed on BGG and yep. I had TOTALLY miss applied the rule. I had forgotten to put my EU rules interpretation hat on!
An interesting little revelation to me to be mindful of wording. In this case its not a translation issue or anything like that, more a mind set. I know I have gone at it with @Fabrizio Vianello more than once on wording ;).
All good! Its playing smoothly!