Rulebook Text

[Neferhet]

Answered to your PM
This is the Faq document absent the text i've used in the merging.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/v6zecdkt2gkasxd/BFG%20%28FAQ2010%29_Text_130321%20%28COMPLETE%29boot.odt

This is instead a draft of a document without any division between basic and advanced:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/rvviqrfhrxdq01e/rulebook%20merged%20with%20faq%20no%20division.odt

EDIT: I've uploaded to the shared folder this last file above, plus another one, called Rulebook_nodivision_example highlights.
Your rule merging is really neat and clear, while mine is a text wall. I was trying to fix this.
I thought to separate (in boxes near text or something similar) the more peculiar issues of many rules from the main wording. This, in the final version, could be really easy to do and could give a faster way to find a clarification to a peculiar case than to having to sort that out from a mile long paragraph. Maybe in that way we should be able to keep a good amount of text from the faq without losing rules and clarifications. What do you think?
P.S. sorry for my bad phrase construction.

[Neferhet]

Hi everyone. I am beginning to smooth any text issue i'm encountering during the reading.
The document used is the last pdf I've shared.
This doesn't mean that the merging is almos done.
I'm just eliminating repetitions and similar things.
I'm trying to give the text a more smooth look.
I will try to collect into textboxes all the "examples in green" that where previously highlighted.
This will happen at the end of the "Alpha proofreading".
I would really love to hear something from you guys.
Cheers.

EDIT: this is the result. The text in green should be "boxed" in the final document.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/5jgihxvq23y2vjy/neferhet_proofreading_green_boxes.odt
(today i'm totally skipping on real life, it appears... )

[Gorlak]

(Neferhet - I've replied via email as well, but here is a simplified version so others can see what's happening)

I've tried opening the file 'Neferhet_130402_proofreading_green boxes.odt' and it says it can't be opened as its 'corrupt'. I doubt it somehow, its probably because I'm using MS Word and your using Open Office. Can you perhaps save them as a .doc type format? I think Open Office is better at this than Word is. I want to make sure I'm not missing anything. Your document 'Neferhet_130329_rulebook merged with faq_no division.odt'

I really like your idea of keeping the clarifications and examples in some way boxed-out or identified to break it up from the wall of text you can sometimes get, especially with the FAQ2010 stuff.

Ive only been able to get a quick look at your two most recent documents, but so far I think the best one is the 'Neferhet_130329_rulebook merged with faq_no division.odt'. That seems really clear and integrates things well. I think keeping all the additions from FAQ2010 (and omissions from the rules, for duplicates etc.) is key to keeping everyone on board and being clear about what we're doing. I tried this with my first attempt at a merged document, with additions from FAQ2010 in green, and omissions in strike through red

This is some really great work you've been getting in on this, its really apprecaited! I know all to well how it can suck in your real life time! I reckon between us we can get this thing into great shape. I'll try and get some more time to review the documents and get some better feedback together. Would you mind having a look at how we can both edit and view documents in our two programs? That would be great.

And no need to worry about your phrase construction, it seems pretty good to me. Much better than my Italian!

Cheers,
H

[Neferhet]

Hi Gorlak, I've emailed you.
Maybe we can have the file
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hta635vvo9653rs/Neferhet_rulebook_no%20division.odt
proofreaded for some rules checking and other opinions.

Everybody should be aware that it is possible to see wich part of the Faq document have not been used from this file:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/v6zecdkt2gkasxd/BFG%20%28FAQ2010%29_Text_130321%20%28COMPLETE%29boot.odt  (if you need a .doc file just PM me)

My "ultimate" version is this, with a double proofread and a single rules check (but I'm no rules expert. We definitely need someone like Afterimagedan or Horizon or fracas to rulecheck this out),
https://www.dropbox.com/s/rrl3eb8vi36x0yz/neferhet_130403_proofreading_green_boxes.doc
but here I highlighted only the Green Boxes, so it's no longer possible to see what part I took from the Faq.
My bad here.

EDIT: Note that this file is an elaboration of the "Neferhet_rulebook_no division" one.

About the boxing out thing:  until now i've kept those parts just in green. Maybe when we have a beta version of the document we can try something more audacious and go for real text boxes.

I think that I can speak even for you, Gorlak, when I say that we are looking forward to hear other people opinion and have some rules checking and proofreading. 
Cheers

[Gorlak]

Hi all,

I'll put a post up in the forum to ask for proofreaders and rules checkers to have a read if they can, I think we need that feedback asap.

For the boxing out of examples and clarifications, I like this idea for the final document, but this 'text-only' document should probably just focus on the content and the quality/clarity of the writing. The process of putting it into Indesign to match the style of the original books will be the stage that formatting and layout will be applied, mainly by the nature of how those programs work. That process will be easier if this text only document is limited to regular, bold and italic text that is in continuous blocks of text.

That said, (!) I think its a very good idea to mark this up with colour and highlights to keep track of what we're doing and were each bit of text has come from etc.

For those who are interested, please see do grab a copy of this text, merged by Neferhet, and have a read:
neferhet_130403_proofreading_green_boxes.doc - superseded
neferhet_130417_proofreading_green_boxes.doc

Any and all feedback and comments are welcome, which ideally and most helpfully would be input directly into the document itself (using tracked changes or another colour etc) to make intergrating these things easier.

Thanks all!
H

[Neferhet]

So, has anybody checked the document?
Gorlak told me he was willing to begin the InDesign formatting within 2 weeks.
Any opinion, ruleschecking and grammarchecking is totally welcome!
If you spot something, please, let me know
Cheers

[Gorlak]

Hello all!

Well after a rather long hiatus due mostly to work, I have started on putting this text into Indesign to bring it up to the presentation standard we all would like. The link to the first (very) work-in-progress segment is as follows:
130506_BFGR_Combined Rulebook_WIP DRAFT.pdf - superseded

This only takes us up to the Special Orders section (no one said this was an easy process!) and I'd love to hear your thoughts on it so far. It should give you an idea of the format and where we are taking the document. I am trying to be as faithful to the original document as possible, but naturally as some sections have substantially more text in them some formatting will have to change.

The last page includes a mock-up I did of a ship page for the later (much, much later most likely!) formatting of any fleet lists, as required.

Hope everyone is having a good long weekend!
Cheers,
H

[afterimagedan]

I think it looks awesome. Can't wait for the time when I have have it printed and have a nice book! Great work and thank you!

[Neferhet]

Gorlak. This. is. Amazing.

[Armiger84]

I have a transatlantic flight coming up on Friday.  I already have the GW pdfs and the 2010 FAQ on my smartphone, so I'll download whatever the most recent copy is Friday morning and bring a steno pad & pen

[AndrewChristlieb]

Do I need an accout for this? I cant seem to pull up the spiffy newness.

[horizon]

No, I can view the dropbox file without signing in.

[Gorlak]

Slight update, managed to squeeze in some time today.

130508_BFGR_Combined Rulebook_WIP DRAFT.pdf is now available to have a look at.

This takes up to the front page of the Shooting section. There are several pages that are too text heavy in my opinion and I will be adding in little pictures or quotes etc. to break that up a bit as I go along. Tweaks like that seem to go better when returning to it afresh. Thank you for the kind words! Looking forward to any feedback incoming.

[Neferhet]

Great! A quick thing I've noted. Page 21: the image and text is mirrored
keep it going!

[Gorlak]

Great! A quick thing I've noted. Page 21: the image and text is mirrored
keep it going!

Ha! When I got to that I thought 'that will be a quick page to do, just flip the image so it works on the left.' Didn't actually look at the text! Cheers for the heads up, I'll sort that in the next update.