Errata Schmeratta

Lately, I've been playing a lot of 'Warhammer Ancient Battles'. I enjoy the system very much, and have even gone so far as to propose my own supplement. I'd had the book, and most of the supplements, for years. It was only recently, however, that I actually started to play the thing regularly with opponents.

It's a strange thing, adapting to a new system. I had thought that I understood the basics of WAB, and I believe that I still do, but I had no idea that the fascinating world of supplement based gaming was going to rush back into my life in such a profound way. Talk about errata!
Or lack thereof, as the case may be.

One of the strong suits of WAB is that GW got smart with this one and literally opened the floodgates by allowing, encouraging, and even inviting players to write official supplements for the system. As you can imagine, this has created a very openminded community of gamers, who are willing to share their love of history and openly debate their ideas in public forums (such as mailing lists). These folks aren't afraid to speculate and theorize, and that makes WAB a far more enriching learning experience than your typical wargame, doubly so when contrasted with most of the other Ancients games I've played over the years.

Of course, this attitude of openness and different ideas has also had its weaknesses. One of them is that, because there is no central authority in creating these WAB Supplements (every one of them was written by a player or players), you tend to get a lot of conflict in terms of the interpretation of certain unusual rules or game circumstances. The traditional means with which to solve this problem is with the creation of "Errata", a list of solutions and official clarifications regarding certain issues found "in-game". However, because each supplement is written by a different author, each author has taken his own approach to the issue of releasing errata.

This has led to some very.. amusing.. circumstances. In some cases, authors will be extraordinarily proactive, using their websites, blogs, or simply presence on the major WAB mailing list(s) to disseminate this information and dole out advice to the audience of WAB gamers. In other cases, authors will generally spend most of their time as "lurkers" on the major mailing lists. They'll occasionally speak up when a major issue is raised, but prefer to remain silent, feeling that "less is more" and that, "the chaps will figure out how to work this out amongst themselves". Some of this last group may actually prefer to share their insight in person, occasionally showing up at wargames conventions or local club games, where they're more than willing to answer questions or, at the very least, to clarify a few bits and pieces. Both are perfectly valid, and hardly anybody has a problem with these attitudes.

Then, there is the third area. That group of writers which feels that it has nothing to say which has not already been perfectly well said by the supplement itself. This is certainly an understandable approach. Having written a few articles for gaming in other genres, having self-published a few rulesets, and of course having my own "unique" academic writing experiences, I can appreciate that sometimes attempting to clarify your point can be FAR more trouble than its worth. One answer to a simple question can literally generate pages of wasted email, hours of wasted conversations, and dozens of beleaguered writers. You'd be absolutely stunned and amazed, I think, at the utter rubbish that a simple page of Errata can generate from the self-proclaimed "experts" in our hobby.

However, saying nothing is sometimes worse than saying something. There are certain WAB supplements which are notorious in the community for their lack of Errata or clarification. In the vast majority of cases, this isn't because the supplements are poorly written (in fact, much to the credit of the authors, I can't think of any that are), nor is it because there are enormous loopholes in the rules. Instead, these supplements are notorious because of the the little things left unexplained or unclarified in the light of new rules changes which could potentially have far-reaching effects. The authors have their reasons, of course; wargamers can be your best buddies or your best enemies depending upon what day of the week it is and which way the wind is blowing. "That arrogant jerk doesn't have time for us," they'll say, or "Well, I know him personally, and THIS was what he was getting at with that section of the book...", which is even worse. I know of at least one author who refuses to comment on his writing in virtually any public forum because his words have been twisted, repeated, and reinterpreted by the masses more times than he would like to think.

(I suppose that example above is yet another example of someone speaking for him, but I think it's safe to say that he's pretty clear in his intent.)

Anyway, this has left some unresolved issues with WAB, and it begs the question - as a WAB supplement writer, how would I handle errata? I've been giving this a lot of thought lately as, coincidentally enough, I've been building armies from one of those supplements fpr which there is no errata, official or otherwise. I can understand the motivation for not releasing it, certainly, but it's also terribly frustrating. Having just recently "figured out" how to interpret a rule unique to this particular supplement, I have already discovered that, while some share my view, majority opinion leans otherwise. A word from the author would probably solve the issue straight away. But no such word has come in the time since this particular supplement came off the presses, and no such word is likely to come in the near future. This has engendered a large number of very interesting approaches to the vagueries of the supplement in question, many of which seem to be geared toward tournament play... and this doesn't always lend itself to the most realistic, fair, or historical solutions, so much as it lends itself to keeping everything "balanced" in terms of tournaments.

(And, if anybody takes his tournaments seriously, it is your average Ancients gamer.)

As I've just said, one can create a barrel of trouble for oneself by "being a nice guy" and answering every question that comes along. The old maxim of "write it clearly enough that you'll have no need for Errata" simply does not work - most gamers will ask questions anyway, usually about the issues that you thought were eloquently articulated. On the other hand, being a firm practicionery of isolationism can also be troublesome. Warhammer Historical is, understandably, not too keen on rattling the saber and forcing these guys to release Errata (too much Errata can very literally kill a game), so that isn't a practical option, either. There simply has to be a middle way to deal with a situation like this, a way to publish changes to your "work in progress" without opening yourself to the very real vulnerabilities of such an unenviable task.


One of my favorite approaches has been to explain the authorial intent, and to leave the actual interpretation beyond that to the whims of the masses. You say something along the lines of, "I had intended that the following rule be used to reflect ABC, but only in circumstance DEF." You follow this with something clever like, "..of course, this is only unofficial. Your groups are free to differ in their interpretations if they feel more comfortable with them." In that way, you clearly articulate what it is you want to say, without completely shutting the door on the "experts" who really believe that the Blemmeye rode giant turtles into battle, rather than camels. They can prove it, they've got loads of documentation, and they'll let everybody know about it. So why not let them, and maintain your own, quiet sort of defiance?

I can't take credit for the above approach, but I like it.

But how about the know-it-alls and experts who'll challenge every one of your assertions, concepts, and rulings?

My favorite approach toward these types is taken from another Ancient ruleset - one you've probably never heard of - called Clash. Clash was one of those games filled with exceptional ideas, but hamstrung by a few kinks that might have been worked out if it had been more widely distributed. I really believe that, had the authors been interested in pursuing it further, they might have produced what would now be a standard amongst wargamers. I even attempted, with a friend, to buy the rights for the engine and develop it further myself, to no avail. It was that good. Anyway, the most brilliant thing about Clash was a line printed on the inside cover of the first (and as far as I know, only) edition. It may well be repeated in print, assuming that WAB picks up my supplement proposal.

"The authors welcome correspondence in regards to the game. However, we refuse to discuss the accuracy or historical validity of our approach with anyone who does not have direct experience of Ancient military service."