Is it Alright to Repeat Myself?

I think a way that repeating yourself works is when you summarize a rule at one point, then get into details of the rule at another. The details should probably include everything you want to know about that part of the game, so if it repeats something that was mentioned in the brief summary, that's ok. Then, if you're concerned that it might be too repetitive, maybe the summary could be more general, so you still have the good details in the combat section?

Also, I think the game design showdown on the forum is great for practicing rules writing. There's one going on right now! It's a challenge, not just making some game in a week, but figuring out how to write the rules with just 500 words, in a way that's understandable, keeps peoples attention, and sounds fun. You don't always need 100% complete rules in the contest, but it's still good practice.

In some instances it may be necessary depending on the complexity of your rules. Of course there'e no need to beat a dead horse and repeat the whole procedure every time the rule is mentioned.

The method you mentioned is a good one, mentioning a rule and leaving a notice of further details on a different page is good.

Short summaries are also good.

Sometimes you can forgo repetition by having examples of play in a short section that helps to explain things when they are mentioned among other rules.

Personally, I don't think you should keep doing it. If your rules are fairly complex, maybe a table of contents at the front and an appendix at the back?

I would not say so. Once I write rules I will try to give a general overview 'linking' to the exact rules for each phase, which will be explained later on. So if in your general overview you link to the specifics on later pages (once each) it should be fine.

I might write a blog about the parallels between game rulebooks and teaching (my girlfriend soon will be a teacher, so she knows this stuff en detail). Would you (the readers, not Eberhardt specifically) be interested in this?

I think the general behavior is that readers don't refer to another place in the rules, when you say "see _______ later". And it's regarded as desirable to have all the rules needed for something in that place (sequence of play rather than reference rules). I include a "rules often missed or misunderstood" section at the end of the rules to highlight just that.

See my "Sequence of Play versus Reference Rules" screencast at http://youtu.be/fEqtp0c540w

The guy in the video explains the two methods well, but seems clearly biased towards the reference style. There are good reasons sequence of play is showing up more lately. Games are meant to be fun, not a technical exercise. Sequence of play helps make reading the rules less dry. It's not just a list of rules that you have to piece together like a puzzle. It helps you imagine how the game is played, and helps you remember the rules you've read as you go through them.

That said, writers using the sequence of play style should still put some thought into referencing the rules later. I can't stand when I have a vague recollection of a rule that's mentioned once, and can't find it because it seems like it was put in the wrong section or something. Including an index for reference is helpful a big rule book.