One of the things that drives me the most consistently bonkers about rulebooks - and wargame rulebooks can be particularly bad about this - is when the same gosh darn thing is explained again and again verbatim.
Let's say for example that every time a formation moves into a certain type of terrain, there's a chance it might become disordered or lose cohesion or some-such. That chance might be adjudicated by a die roll made against the unit's Morale Factor or Cohesion Value or what-not. So you might get a rule that goes something like this:
When the unit enters a muskeg hex, roll one die and compare the result to its Morale. If the roll is less than or equal to its Morale, it suffers no adverse effects. If the roll is greater than its Morale, its formation becomes Broken; affix it with a Broken marker.
Okay, that's fine and dandy, but let's move on from movement. We're in the rules for combat now, and let's say that one of the things a unit can do is Charge, but in order to Charge, they need to roll a die against their Morale again. And so we get this rule, which looks a tad bit familiar:
Before the unit can Charge, roll one die and compare the result to its Morale. If the roll is less than or equal to its Morale, it Charges. If the roll is greater than its Morale, it does not Charge and becomes Reluctant; affix it with a Reluctant marker.
Well, I guess that's fine - wait, the non-acting player can Counter-Charge? But first it needs to roll a die against their Morale?
The non-acting player rolls one die for the unit attempting Counter-Charge and compares the result to its Morale. If the roll is less than or equal to its Morale, it Counter-Charges. If the roll is greater than its Morale, I am adding some words to see if anyone is actually reading this rule for the third flipping time.
And, wait, when a unit takes hits, it can try to shake them off by rolling against their Morale? And when a unit tries to throw off the pile of status markers that have been accumulating on its four-cornered head, it does so by rolling against their Morale?
Whenever the reader encounters this roll against Morale rule in this book, roll one die and compare the result to their Morale. If the roll is less than or equal to its Morale, it keeps reading. If the roll is greater than its Morale, the reader plays something else.
There's no reason to repeat this same procedure over and over again at various points in the rules. It's redundant, it's wordy, and it makes the thing seem a lot more complicated than it actually is. Really, this kind of thing should just be explained once.
4.2 Morale Checks
During the course of the game, you will be called upon to make Morale Checks for your Units. To make a Morale Check, roll one die and compare the result to the Unit's Morale. If the total is greater than the Morale, the Morale Check is failed; otherwise, the Morale Check is passed. The consequences of failing a Morale Check will vary depending on the reason why the Check is made.
Boom! That's it, that's the whole procedure, and all we have to do now with the rest of the rules is say "when X happens, make a Morale Check. If failed, Y occurs". (I also prefer this wording because the word "otherwise" nimbly and unambiguously encompasses both "less than" and "equal to".)
This whole thing might seem like a bit of a strawman, but honestly, I've seen rules for morale checks that are written like that - every time it shows up, they explain the whole thing over again, like they assume their players to be goldfish. Or maybe they think it's being more "accessible": this way, the player who looks up the rule for entering a muskeg hex or Charging doesn't have to flip back to rule 4.2 or whatever.But one of the core reasons why non-wargamers find wargames "inaccessible" is that the rules are dense and needlessly wordy - that they appear more complicated than they actually are.