Back in 2000-2001 I developed what I can comfortably described as an obsession with Diplomacy. Much of what you’ll read below was written in April 2001 and, if my younger self did his job (which I believe he did), should fully explain why — following my in-depth study of the game — I came to the conclusion that a revised rulebook for the game was necessary. Although these rules received a limited dissemination during the spring and summer of 2001, this is the first time they’ve been made widely and commonly available. (If you’d prefer to cut to the chase, click here to download the PDF.)

In the words of The Diplomacy Player’s Technical Guide: “Diplomacy merits such a body of game laws as chess has: One that is clean, clear, consistent, comprehensible, conventional, concrete, concise, complete, discrete, finite, playable, unambiguous, standard, traditional, elegant, firm, precise, and logically whole.”

The Alexander Rules are designed to provide such a set of rules.

It is an unfortunate reality that the rules of Diplomacy – as published by Allan B. Calhamer, Games Research, Avalon Hill, and Hasbro – have always contained ambiguities and inconsistencies: Situations in which a “correct and consistent” adjudication by the rules (i.e., an adjudication which will be identical from one Gamemaster or Judge to the next) is impossible.

HISTORY OF THE DIPLOMACY RULES

For the casual student, the extant rules for Diplomacy (as published in America) are:

D1959
GR1961
GR1971
AH1976
AH1982
AH1992
H1999
H1999 (computer)
H2000
WOTC2008

The D1959 rules are the original rules as published by Allan B. Calhamer. When Games Research, Inc. acquired the rights to the game in 1961 they published their own rulebook (GR1961) – which was, in all ways, identical to the 1959 rulebook except for typographical design and lay-out.

The rules were first revised by Games Research, Inc. ten years later. A team consisting of Rod Walker, Steve Marion, John McCallum, John Boardman, and others was commissioned to work with Allan Calhamer. The result was the GR1971 rulebook. This rulebook reorganized the entire rule set, introducing the idea of numbering and naming each rule individually. The rulebook clarified a number of concepts and introduced rule XII.5: A Convoyed Attack Does Not Protect the Convoying Fleets. This rule was an attempt to resolve first order paradoxes (see below).

When Avalon Hill acquired Diplomacy in 1976, they published their own rulebook (AH1976). This rulebook was identical to the GR1971 rulebook, but bore a new copyright date.

Six years later, in 1982, Avalon Hill released a revised ruleset. Known as the 1982 or “2^nd Edition” rulebook (despite the fact it was really the third edition of the published game), this rulebook (AH1982) again offered revisions in an attempt to create a more consistent ruleset. Notably, rule XII.5 was changed to: A Convoyed Attack Does Not Cut Certain Supports (this rule was an attempt to resolve second order paradoxes) and rule XII.6: Both a Convoy and an Overland Route was added (this rule was an attempt to stop the “kidnapped army” ambiguity).

Avalon Hill revised the rulebook a second time in 1992, resulting in the AH1992 (3^rd Edition) rulebook. These rules were, essentially, identical to the AH1982 rulebook, but there were editorial changes designed to clarify the distinction between a Move order, a Support order, and a Convoy order. These editorial changes resulted in an alteration in the numbering and naming of the rules – meaning that referring to a rule by the numerical scheme was no longer practical unless you specified the rulebook you were referring to. (As a result, most players in the Diplomacy community continue to use the 1982 references and ignored the 1992 rulebook.)

Avalon Hill was sold to Hasbro in the late 1990’s. Under Hasbro’s ownership, a new edition of Diplomacy was released in 1999 with a completely revised rulebook (H1999). This rulebook, also known as the 4^th Edition, was aimed firmly at the neophyte, illustrated with copious examples and explanative text. Unfortunately, in an effort to make the rules accessible to a family audience, the H1999 rulebook sacrificed precision, ease of use, and consistency: The numerical ordering of the rules was abandoned, the rules were badly broken up by the examples without clear reference, and the second and (under some interpretations) first order paradoxes were reintroduced to the ruleset. On the other hand, the H1999 rules did include the first clear resolution of the “kidnapped army” ambiguity.

At the same time that Hasbro released its revised edition of Diplomacy, it also released a CD-ROM version of the game. The CD-ROM game shipped with its own rulebook (referred to as the H1999 computer rulebook), which differed from the H1999 rulebook in only one regard: It did not include a clear resolution of the “kidnapped army” ambiguity, and – in fact – took a step backward here, as well, to the 1976 rules.

Hasbro has also released a H2000 rulebook, differentiated from the H1999 rulebook only by the copyright date. A third version of this rulebook, published by wizards of the coast, was released in 2008 with no significant changes (although the name of the Build Phase had been changed to the “Gaining and Losing Units Phase”).

So, in general, it is safe to say that there have been five versions of the rulebook:

D1959/GR1961 (Original Edition)
GR1971/AH1976 (1^st Edition)
AH1982 (2^nd Edition)
AH1992 (3^rd Edition)
H1999/H2000/WOTC2008 (4^th Edition)

With a minor variation of the 4^th Edition for the CD-ROM edition of the game.

AMBIGUITIES

Ambiguities are situations in which the rules are unclear. There are two possible outcomes of adjudication, but the discrepancy is caused because the meaning of the rules is unclear. If the meaning of the rules were clear, then no discrepancy would exist.

THE COASTAL CRAWL: In the original edition of the game, the definition of a “space” was not as clearly defined as it is today. As a result, one interpretation of the rules postulated that, for example, the north coast and the south coast were two separate provinces, allowing:

F Por-Spa (nc)
F Spa (sc)-Por

Calhamer explicitly did not desire that this move – known as the “coastal crawl” – should be legal. As a result, the 1971 revision of the rules clarified the definition of spaces and disallowed the coastal crawl.

MULTIPLE CONVOY ROUTES: Under the original rules it was entirely unclear how multiple, legitimate convoy routes should be handled. For example:

A Tun-Nap
F Ion C A Tun-Nap
F Tyn C A Tun-Nap

Should such an order be disallowed because it “admits of two meanings”? If it is allowed, should the army be allowed to move to Tunis if one (but not both) convoys are disrupted? In the 1971 revision, rule XII.4 (Ambiguous Convoy Routes) allowed the orders, but stated that “if any of the possible routes are destroyed by dislodgment of a fleet, the army may not move”.

This, however, created new problems. Now all a foreign power needed to do to prevent a convoy was to order an alternate convoy and then arrange for its own fleet to be dislodged. So the 2^nd Edition reversed course, replacing rule XII.4 with “More Than One Convoy Route: If the orders as written permit more than one route by which the convoyed army could proceed from its source to its destination, the order is not void on account of this ambiguity; and the army is not prevented from moving due to dislodgment of fleets, unless all routes are disrupted.”

KIDNAPPED ARMY: Another problem with convoys were “kidnapped armies”. Here an army in a coastal province is attempting to move into an empty, adjacent coastal province. A foreign power slyly orders a convoy for the unit, and then arranges for the convoy to be disrupted. Now, it seemed, the army no longer moved – because their convoy had been disrupted (rule XII.3).

The 2^nd Edition rulebook attempted to correct this problem with rule XII.6: “Both a Convoy Route and an Overland Route: If an army could arrive at its destination either overland or by convoy, one route must be considered and the other disregarded, depending upon the intent as shown by the totality of the orders written by the player governing the army.”

The problem is that rule XII.6 amounted to absolutely nothing. What does “shown by the totality of the orders written by the player governing the army” mean, exactly?

This problem remained uncorrected until the 4^th Edition of the rules, where an unnumbered rule reads: “If at least one of the convoying Fleets belongs to the player who controls the Army, then the convoy is used. The land route is disregarded. If none of the convoying Fleets belong to the player who controls the army, then the land route is used. However, the player controlling the army can use the convoy route if he/she indicated ‘via convoy’ on the Army move order in question.” (pg. 15)

This, however, is the rule which was dropped for the H1999 computer version of the manual, because the CD-ROM game offered no mechanic by which “via convoy” could be indicated. The H1999 computer version of the manual states that “if either the overland route or the convoy route is valid, then the Army will move to its destination”.

Note that both of these rules resolves the ambiguity in a different fashion.

BRANNAN’S RULE: Brannan’s Rule was an early house rule which attempted to solve first order paradoxes (see below). It was named after Steve Cartier (aka Dan Brannan), and stated: “The army in a convoyed attack is deemed to come from the space occupied by the last convoying fleet.” The primary intended effect of this rule was to make it impossible for a convoyed attack to cut a support directed against a convoying fleet.

However, Brannan’s Rule has a couple of undesirable side-effects: If the army is coming from the space occupied by the last convoying fleet, then the army is occupying that space at the same time as the fleet (something which the rules expressly forbid at all times).

Allan Calhamer disagreed with Brannan’s Rule, and in the 1971 revision an alternate solution was found to first order paradoxes (which specifically prevented the convoy from cutting a support against itself).

The rules, however, have never clearly stated that a convoyed attack comes from the army’s original province – which means that the ambiguity of the issue crops up from time to time.

PARADOXES

Unlike ambiguities, the problem of paradoxes cannot be resolved by clarifying the rules. In most cases, the rules are crystal clear: The problem of the paradoxical situation is that it admits itself to two different resolutions under the rules. In order to correct a paradox, the rules must be changed or amended.

FIRST ORDER PARADOXES: The simplest of the paradoxes involves a convoyed attack cutting the support of an attack which would, otherwise, disrupt the convoy:

England: F Lon S F Wal-ENG
England: F Wal-ENG

France: A Bre-ENG-Lon
France: F ENG C A Bre-Lon

Under the original rules of the game, this situation could not be adjudicated: If the convoy succeeds, then the support is cut and the convoy succeeds. If the support is not cut, then the convoy fails and the support is not cut.

In the AH1976 rules, this was corrected with rule XII.5: “A Convoyed Attack Does Not Protect the Convoying Fleets: If a convoyed army attacks a fleet which is supporting a fleet which is attacking one of the convoying fleets, the support is not cut.”

Now the adjudication is clear: The support of F Lon is not cut and the attack on ENG by F Wal succeeds, dislodging F Bre and disrupting the convoy.

SECOND ORDER PARADOXES: But that didn’t solve all the problems:

France: A Bre-ENG-Lon
France: F ENG C A Bre-Lon

England: F Lon S F Edi-NTH
England: F Edi-NTH

Russia: A Nwy-NTH-Bel
Russia: F NTH C A Nwy-Bel

Germany: F Bel S F Pic-ENG
Germany: F Pic-ENG

Do both convoys succeed or are both convoys disrupted because both convoys succeed?

Another revision of the rules was in order, and in AH1982 it was provided with a rewrite of rule XII.5: “A Convoyed Attack Does Not Cut Certain Supports: If a convoyed army attacks a fleet which is supporting an action in a body of water; and that body of water contains a convoying fleet, that support is not cut.”

Unfortunately, this new rule had side effects – altering adjudications in situations where there had been no problem. And, worse yet, the result could almost certainly be described as wholly illogical in those actions:

England: F IRI-MAT
England: F ENG S F IRI-MAT

France: F Spa (nc) S F MAT
France: F MAT C A Por-Bre
France: F Por-MAT-Bre

Italy: F GOL C A Tus-Spa
Italy: A Tus-GOL-Spa

Under the 1976 rules, Italy’s attack on Spain would cut the support and result in the disruption of the convoy through the Mid-Atlantic. Under the 1982 rules, Italy’s attack on Spain has no effect at all. Worse yet, if you add:

Italy: A Mar S A Tus-GOL-Spa

France’s fleet in Spain is actually dislodged, but still offers support under the 1982 rules.

PANDIN’S PARADOX: Plus, the 1982 rule didn’t resolve all the paradoxes. Pandin’s Paradox results from orders like these:

France: A Bre-ENG-Lon
France: F ENG C A Bre-Lon

England: F Lon S F Wal-ENG
England: F Wal-ENG

Germany: F NTH S F Bel-ENG
Germany: F Bel-ENG

Ignoring the effects of the convoy, the attacks on the English Channel from England and Germany are equally supported – which means that France’s fleet in the English Channel would not be dislodged due to the beleaguered garrison rule. But now take the effects of the convoy into account: If the convoy succeeds, then it cuts London’s support, which means that England’s and Germany’s attack on the channel are no longer equally supported, which means that the fleet is dislodged, which means that the convoy is disrupted. Paradox.

DESIGN PRINCIPLES OF THE ALEXANDER RULES

The Alexander rules are designed to be:

Clear: The meaning of a rule is never vague or uncertain, and admits of only one interpretation. Ambiguities do not exist in the rules.

Robust: The rules are consistent and logical, allowing for only a single resolution to be possible for any given set of orders. Paradoxes do not exist under the rules.

Precise: Rules can be cited accurately and quickly. The rules have been structured to group concepts into clear hierarchies and are numbered to provide easy reference (under a numbering system which is distinct from previous numbering systems so as to minimize confusion). Terms within the rules are given specific definition.

Clean: When notes and comments are included, they are clearly separated from the rules themselves. (Notes are identified as such and contained within parentheses. These notes comment upon the rules, but are not part of the rule set.)

Elegant: The rules seek to provide the simplest means to any end. Unnecessary rules are avoided. Duplication of rules is avoided whenever possible.

Traditional: The Alexander Rules do not represent an alteration of Diplomacy, except in those circumstances when it is required to correct a paradox.

Complete: The Alexander Rules contain all the rules necessary to play Diplomacy.

Specifically, here are ways in which the ambiguities and paradoxes mentioned above have been resolved in the Alexander Rules:

Coastal Crawl: As per the most recent edition of the rules (following the GR1971 revision), the definition of a “province” in the Alexander Rules is precise and the coastal crawl is not allowed.

Multiple Convoy Routes: As per the most recent edition of the rules (following the AH1982 revision), multiple convoy routes are allowed and the convoy is not disrupted unless all routes are disrupted.

Kidnapped Armies: The Alexander Rules use a simpler standard than the most recent edition of the rules. If an Army could reach its destination via either a land route or a convoy route, it is assumed to move via the land route unless it is specifically ordered to move “via convoy”. Furthermore, an Army ordered to move via convoy that has all of its convoys disrupted will still attempt to move via land if that is possible.

Brannan’s Rule: As per the most recent edition of the rules (following the intentions of Allan B. Calhamer), a convoyed attack is always considered to have come from the province from which the attacking army is moving.

Paradoxes: The Alexander Rules contain neither the 1976 nor the 1982 anti-paradox rule. Instead, the following rule (IV.5.g) is used:

“RESOLVING PARADOXES: If a convoy would be disrupted if not for the effects of the Army being convoyed, then the convoy is disrupted. If a convoy would not be disrupted if not for the effects of the Army being convoyed, then the convoy is not disrupted even if a Fleet involved in the convoy is dislodged (this is an exception to rule IV.5.c).”

When adjudicating a convoy under this rule, first assume that the convoy fails. If the result of this assumption is that all possible convoy routes are disrupted, then the convoy fails. If the result of this assumption is that the convoy succeeds, then the convoy succeeds (even if the result of that success is that the fleet involved in the convoy is dislodged).

In first and second order paradoxes, this rule results in the Fleet being dislodged and the convoy being disrupted. This is consistent with the 1976 and 1982 anti-paradox rules, but avoids the unwarranted side effects of the 1982 rule.

For Pandin paradoxes (which have never been resolved under an official rule set), this rule creates an exception to the rule that a convoy is disrupted if one of the Fleets involved in the convoy is dislodged. This approach was taken because its result is more consistent with the resolution of analogous orders. The classic Pandin’s Paradox is represented by the moves:

France: A Bre-ENG-Wal
France: F ENG C A Bre-Wal

England: F Wal S F Lon-ENG
England: F Lon-ENG

Germany: F NTH S F Bel-ENG
Germany: F Bel-ENG

As described above. Take the following orders, however:

France: F ENG-Wal

England: F Wal S F Lon-ENG
England: F Lon-ENG

Germany: F NTH S F Bel-ENG
Germany: F Bel-ENG

Resolution: The French attack cuts Wales’ support of London. Germany moves into the English Channel.

Or the following orders:

France: A Yor-Lon

England: F Wal S F Lon-ENG
England: F Lon-ENG

Germany: F NTH S F Bel-ENG
Germany: F Bel-ENG

Resolution: The French attack cuts Wales’ support of London. Germany moves into the English Channel.

Or the following orders:

France: A Bre-MAT-IRI-Wal
France: F MAT C A Bre-Wal
France: F IRI C A Bre-Wal

England: F Wal S F Lon-ENG
England: F Lon-ENG

Germany: F NTH S F Bel-ENG
Germany: F Bel-ENG

Resolution: The French attack cuts Wales’ support of London. Germany moves into the English Channel.

In short, given the following orders:

England: F Wal S F Lon-ENG
England: F Lon-ENG

Germany: F NTH S F Bel-ENG
Germany: F Bel-ENG

The only way that France can attack Wales and not cut the support of London (allowing Germany to move into the English Channel) is if it attempts to convoy an army through the English Channel.

The Alexander Rules solves Pandin’s Paradox by handling the French convoy through the English Channel in the same way as all other French attacks upon Wales: The attack succeeds, the support is cut, and Germany moves into the English Channel. This means that the French fleet in the English Channel is dislodged, so a special exception is made which prevents the dislodgement from disrupting the convoy.

Another way of looking at it: Pandin’s Paradox arises specifically because the Fleet in the English Channel, while being a crucial component of the attack on Wales, does not move out of the English Channel during the attack. As a result, unlike a unit attacking on its own, the convoying Fleet can be dislodged from its province of origin – which would disrupt the convoy and causes the paradox. Similarly, if units elsewhere could attack without moving, you’d end up with all sorts of paradoxes. For example, try to resolve the following attack under the assumption that the army in Bohemia attacks, but doesn’t move and that dislodging the Bohemian army stops it from attacking:

Austria: A Boh ATTACKS Vie
Austria: A Gal S A Boh ATTACKS Vie

Germany: A Sil-Boh
Germany: A Mun S A Sil-Boh

Turkey: A Tyl-Boh
Turkey: A Vie S A Tyl-Boh

Ignore the Austrian attack. Bohemia is the scene of a stand-off, which means it benefits from the Beleaguered Garrison rule and is not dislodged. But when you take the Austrian attack into account, it dislodges the Turkish support from Vienna (cutting it), as a result Germany moves into Bohemia, dislodging the Austrian army, which prevents it from attacking, which prevents it from dislodging the Turkish support… Paradox.

This analogy allows us to precisely identify the two sources of the paradox: (1) The fact that the Austrian army doesn’t move while it attacks. (2) The fact that dislodging the Austrian army causes its attack to fail.

Back to the convoy: Obviously we don’t want the Fleet to move while it is convoying (that would open up a whole new can of worms). Nor do we want to allow a convoy to succeed when the Fleet has been dislodged, because the convoy would then be immune to disruption. The solution? Create a single exception, in which the convoy can succeed even though the Fleet has been dislodged, but only when the convoyed attack is responsible for the Fleet being dislodged. (Which is, of course, exactly what the Alexander Rules do.)

As a final note, it should be understood that accessibility – per se – is not the goal of the Alexander Rules. Simply reading the Alexander Rules is not a good way to learn how to play Diplomacy: The rules are designed for precision and clarity, but not instructional value. The ideal situation would be a comprehensive Beginner’s Guide to Diplomacy using the Alexander Rules – a project which I hope to complete at some point in the future.

ALEXANDER RULES
(PDF)

RoboRally is 20 years old this year. It remains one of my favorite boardgames of all time: The combination of clever puzzle-solving, long-term strategic thinking, and half-crazed chaos is brilliantly balanced. I wrote a detailed review of the original edition of the game back in 1998.

One of the things I always wanted to do back in the day was pick up the three expansions that were released in the ’90s: Armed & Dangerous, Radioactive, Crash & Burn, and Grand Prix. Unfortunately, I was a poor high school / college student back then and I couldn’t afford to snap them up when they were released. Then, with the release of the second edition of the game, the expansions were taken out of print and immediately skyrocketed in price.

Last year, however, I decided to bite the bullet and track down all of the expansions for the game.

I also picked up a copy of the 3rd Edition published under the Avalon Hill brand in 2005: This edition replaced the metal miniatures with plastic ones and used much cheaper stock for the map boards, but significantly upgraded many of the other components. (I’m particularly enamored of the plastic flags.)

Once I had this mass of material, however, it took a little extra effort to figure out how to combine all of it together for the RoboRally: Utimate Collection. So I’d like to take a moment to share that effort with all of you. (And some of what I’ve done I think you’ll find useful even if you aren’t interested in owning an Ultimate Collection of your own.)

ASSEMBLING THE ULTIMATE COLLECTION

In order to assemble the RoboRally Ultimate Collection, you’ll need to buy:

• RoboRally (1st Edition)
• RoboRally (2nd Edition)
• RoboRally (3rd Edition)
• RoboRally: Armed and Dangerous
• RoboRally: Radioactive
• RoboRally: Crash & Burn
• RoboRally: Grand Prix

You will then collect from these editions:

ROBOTS: You’ll be able to use the robots from all three editions of the game (giving you a total of 24 different robots). Some of the robot models from the 1st Edition are replicated in 2nd Edition (and Twonky appears in all three editions, albeit with different sculpts). Simply paint the duplicates different colors. You’ll also want to take the Archive markers from all three editions.

GAME BOARDS: Take the game boards from the 1st Edition and 3rd Edition of the game. Then take all of the game boards from the expansions (Armed and Dangerous, Radioactive, Crash & Burn, and Grand Prix).

PROGRAM CARDS: I personally prefer the program cards from 3rd Edition.

OPTION CARDS / TOKENS: You’ll want to use the Option cards from the 1st Edition of the game and combine them with the Option cards from Armed and Dangerous. Take the option tokens from Armed and Dangerous.

FLAGS: 1st Edition used red flag chits. 2nd Edition used green flag chits. 3rd Edition uses plastic flags that stand up from the game board. The plastic flags from 3rd Edition are clearly superior, but you can actually pull the flags from all three editions if you want to run some truly insane rallies. (For example, you could run through the plastic flags, then the red flags, and then the green flags for an insane course featuring 24 rally points. Put them all on a single game board for sheer insanity.)

MISC. COMPONENTS: Take the damage tokens, Power Down tokens, and life tokens from the 3rd Edition of the game. (You’ll want to use the 3rd edition components to match the program sheets.) Also take the thirty-second timer from the 3rd Edition.

And that’s it! The tricky part these days is actually finding all of the original 1st Edition expansion sets.

ULTIMATE COLLECTION RULEBOOK

In order to wed the disparate components from across multiple editions together, I’ve also prepared the RoboRally Ultimate Collection Rulebook and the RoboRally Ultimate Collection Factory Guide. The latter pulls together the information from all of the different board element guides into a handy reference guide that you can print on a single sheet of paper. The former provides the most authoritative version of the complete RoboRally rules ever produced.

In fact, whether you can (or want) to assemble a full Ultimate Collection, I think you’ll still want to check out the Ultimate Collection Rulebook: It reorganizes and streamlines the rules while simultaneously clarifying them in order to resolve a number of vague corner-cases that none of the official rulebooks can handle properly.

Ultimate Collection Rulebook 
(PDF)

Ultimate Collection Factory Guide
(PDF)

I’ve been a big fan of Level 7: Escape since I first played it at GenCon a couple years back. The basic concept of the game is simple: You’ve been kidnapped by aliens based out of an Area 51 look-a-like named Subterra Bravo. Now something has gone wrong in the facility, the stasis pods you were being held in have cracked open, and you need to figure out how to escape from the complex as everything goes to hell.

It’s a co-op ‘crawler, but with gameplay that’s based primarily around escape instead of combat. The scenarios are clever, varied, and tell a nice little story over the course of a full campaign.

I wish that the game supported more than 4 players, but the only real problem I have with the game is the rulebook, which has proven to be very difficult and convoluted to use during play. As a result, rules are frequently missed and mistakes are often made. This has hampered my enjoyment of the game, particularly because it provides a hurdle that needs to be cleared whenever I come back to the game after a long break (and all those niggling little rules go scurrying off again).

So I’ve ended up compiling a completely revised rulebook.

DESIGN NOTES FOR THE REVISED RULEBOOK

The key problem with the published rulebook is that it features both procedural and indexed organization.

Procedurally-organized rules are listed when you use them. (For example, you might say: “When you make an attack, first you do X, then you do Y, and that will tell you if Z happens.”) Index-organized rules, on the other hand, are grouped together into broad categories suitable for quick reference. (For example, you might say: “Z is something that will happen during A, B, or C.”)

Either of these approaches can work well. And, in fact, you can use both of them at the same time as long as both sets of information are fully functional. Unfortunately, this isn’t the case with the Level 7: Escape rulebook. Instead, half of the rules are indexed under general headings and half the rules are listed procedurally.

This is a really huge problem.

For example, there’s a section of the rulebook titled “Raising Fear” and it includes a list of things that raise your fear. One of the items on the list is, “When you leave a tile with a darkness marker, raise your fear by 1.” That rule is not listed in the procedures for moving off a tile. Later in the rulebook, however, there are other effects that raise fear which aren’t listed in the “Raising Fear” section.

You can see the problem: If you’re wondering if something raises fear or not, you can’t reliably check the “Raising Fear” index. Simultaneously, if you’re wondering what to do when moving off a darkness title, you’ll likely check the procedure for moving off a tile and end up forgetting to raise your fear.

In practice, it’s even more confusing because there isn’t a single section of “indexed rules”. Instead, these little index sections are scattered haphazardly around the rulebook. So if you’re following a procedure detailed in the rulebook, you can never be sure that there isn’t some crucial step that’s buried somewhere else.

For this revised rulebook, the rules are reorganized to be entirely procedural: If you need to move off a tile, look at the rules for movement and you’ll see everything you’re supposed to do (including raising your fear level if the tile has a darkness marker on it).

In practice, this has resolved a lot of the confusion surrounding the rules of the game and drastically reduced the number of errors being made during play. Hopefully you’ll find this to be true at your table, too!

UNOFFICIAL ERRATA

The rulebook also includes the errata and clarifications from the official FAQ. However, in addition to those changes I also discovered a number of other discrepancies or unclear rules in the course of my revising. In order to make the revised rulebook as clear as possible, I needed to include some “unofficial” errata.

All of those changes, however, are listed on the final page of the unofficial rulebook (along with an explanation of my rationale for making a particular ruling in each case). So if you want to make a different choice than I did, it should be easy enough!

It should be noted, however, that I’ve made no effort to resolve some of the difficulties found in the Scenario book for the game. I’m afraid that’s beyond the scope of this project. The official FAQ will resolve several of the most problematic mechanics (including the game-breaking errors in the final scenario), but when it comes to the remaining issues I recommend just taking your best guess. (When in doubt, go with the option which makes the game more difficult for you!)

Revised Rulebook (PDF)

(If you have a printer that can do booklet printing, I recommend it.)

Little Dead Riding Hood is a cute little game where little girls wearing multi-hued hoods and wielding high caliber glocks race their way to granny’s house through werewolf-infested woods.

The game has, for all intents and purposes, been universally panned. The reason for this is simple: The rulebook is very bad.

Actually, let me be clear here: The use of the word “bad” here is completely inadequate. It’s like saying, “The Earth is bigger than a basketball.” It’s technically true, but completely misleading in its lack of scale. It needs to be understood that the rulebook for Little Dead Riding Hood is simply dire: It includes two different sequences of play which contradict each other. It has inconsistent use of terminology. It has an illustrative “board explanation” which contradicts the written rules. And, to provide the cherry on top, a significant number of common game play scenarios can’t be resolved using the rules as written. It’s a twisted and essentially unplayable mess.

BUT…

… there’s actually a pretty fun little game in there.

Once you muddle your way through the rulebook’s morass the game actually proves to be interesting, clever, and dynamic with some unique ideas lurking under the hood. (Pardon the pun.)

So I decided to write a revised version of the rulebook in an effort to both clarify the rules as written and also supplement them as necessary in order to resolve key mechanical problems. Hopefully the result will be to make the game both easier to learn and more enjoyable to play.

The revised rulebook does NOT include the clarifications of how specific helpers and cards are resolved. You should reference the original rulebook for that information.

You can also download this file at Boardgame Geek. (You can also find the original rulebook there if you’d like to compare them.)

Revised Rulebook (PDF)