Kanluwen wrote: Bluntly, if they hadn't posted the stupid "conversion" image? I don't think it would have been as big of a deal. People demanding to know the "hows" and "whys" of the mechanics always seem to pose more issues than the actual mechanics over time.
Agreed.
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: The amount of FAQs that usually get put out a few days after the so-called relase makes me thing there is a grand total of 0 playtesting groups.
It seems that some portion of the external playtesting occurs *after* the rules have already gone to print. My understanding of the process that I've been able to put together from different comments is that early stage external playtesting acts as more of a focus group - they are provided incomplete rules in order for them to test certain gameplay concepts more or less in a vacuum and without full context in order to evaluate the user experience, rather than for balancing or proofing. This enables GW to test lots of stuff without risking leaks, but at the same time the testers don't actually know what they are testing and don't necessarily know how it all fits together - is it a new game entirely? rules for a new codex? the next update for an existing game system? etc. Something like these shapes the playtesters might have reviewed favorably only having seen a portion of the implementation and expected more would be done with it, not realizing that there wasn't all that much more to the scope. I.E. - "So do these shapes work?", "Yep, would love to see what you do with them".
Late stage external playtesting is more for proofing and balance, it starts very close to when the books are actually being printed (which is fairly quick and happens in a tight window relative to when the rules are actually released), it might last for only 2-3 weeks total before GW sends the files to publication and allows GW to make last minute points/stat/rules adjustments and make a final balancing pass before going to print. The need for the FAQ and errata after release is often as a result of these last minute changes because there often isn't a lot of time to fully review and playtest them externally prior to going to print, so errors and mistakes are usually "baked in" as a result and the only way to correct them is post-release.
Kanluwen wrote: I'm hesitant to lay it all at the game designers' feet. I'll be interested to see which playtest groups get credited and if this was intended to tie in to the mass market boardgames that have been shown off earlier this year(which all look to be hex-based).
GW's game designers seem to have very little power to be honest. It is miniature designers and executives who really control the game, and game designers have to do what those two groups tell them.
kodos wrote: Spain is the one country were also Warhammer Fantasy is/was played with centimeters
All GW games used to be in cm, over here, not only BFG and WFB. I distinctly remember that caused some issues with random movements when playing international tournaments ^^
But that was in the past, now, and for years now, all countries use the standarized inches.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote: Bluntly, if they hadn't posted the stupid "conversion" image? I don't think it would have been as big of a deal. People demanding to know the "hows" and "whys" of the mechanics always seem to pose more issues than the actual mechanics over time.
Hm.... well, then we'd have measurements with absolutely no context at all, which seems worse, even, tbh. There's a reason why in other games, even when using arbitrary measures, use Range 1, Range 2 and the like... because EVERYONE knows what they mean, then, and which is smaller and which is larger.
Had they used Range 1-2-3-4? That would have been no problem. Range Triangle-Circle-Square-Pentagon, without even a notion of context? Not. Good. At. All.
And with it is barely workable... even though it seems that it doesn't matter at all.
Albertorius wrote: Had they used Range 1-2-3-4? That would have been no problem. Range Triangle-Circle-Square-Pentagon, without even a notion of context? Not. Good. At. All.
With the exception of the circle, you would have a 3-, 4- and 5-sided shape.
Albertorius wrote: Had they used Range 1-2-3-4? That would have been no problem. Range Triangle-Circle-Square-Pentagon, without even a notion of context? Not. Good. At. All.
With the exception of the circle, you would have a 3-, 4- and 5-sided shape.
And still more convoluted than simply 1-2-3-4. So, why? How does it improve the game?
Albertorius wrote: Had they used Range 1-2-3-4? That would have been no problem. Range Triangle-Circle-Square-Pentagon, without even a notion of context? Not. Good. At. All.
With the exception of the circle, you would have a 3-, 4- and 5-sided shape.
And still more convoluted than simply 1-2-3-4. So, why? How does it improve the game?
Well, there's no 1- or 2-sided shapes that they could use. As to why they decided to use it
Albertorius wrote: Had they used Range 1-2-3-4? That would have been no problem. Range Triangle-Circle-Square-Pentagon, without even a notion of context? Not. Good. At. All.
With the exception of the circle, you would have a 3-, 4- and 5-sided shape.
And still more convoluted than simply 1-2-3-4. So, why? How does it improve the game?
Well, there's no 1- or 2-sided shapes that they could use. As to why they decided to use it
Could use a circle for 1 and a crescent moon for 2.
Albertorius wrote: Had they used Range 1-2-3-4? That would have been no problem. Range Triangle-Circle-Square-Pentagon, without even a notion of context? Not. Good. At. All.
With the exception of the circle, you would have a 3-, 4- and 5-sided shape.
And still more convoluted than simply 1-2-3-4. So, why? How does it improve the game?
Well, there's no 1- or 2-sided shapes that they could use. As to why they decided to use it
A circle is a 1-sided shape. A half-circle, or a crescent moon is a 2-sided shape
Kanluwen wrote: Bluntly, if they hadn't posted the stupid "conversion" image? I don't think it would have been as big of a deal. People demanding to know the "hows" and "whys" of the mechanics always seem to pose more issues than the actual mechanics over time.
Hm.... well, then we'd have measurements with absolutely no context at all, which seems worse, even, tbh. There's a reason why in other games, even when using arbitrary measures, use Range 1, Range 2 and the like... because EVERYONE knows what they mean, then, and which is smaller and which is larger.
Had they used Range 1-2-3-4? That would have been no problem. Range Triangle-Circle-Square-Pentagon, without even a notion of context? Not. Good. At. All.
There was context. You just have chosen to dislike it.
Spoiler:
The first thing you’ll notice is the Movement characteristic – what exactly does 3◯ mean? To keep everything quick and easy to measure, Kill Team uses a system of four colours with corresponding shapes to represent common distances.
The context? You look at the measurement tools. You move 3 circles worth of distance, meaning place the tool 3 times to make your move.
It's not "3 Circles OR 1 Pentagon OR 6 Triangles". The measurements had a set value, as did the actual Movement characteristic. This, if done properly, would allow for different sets of modifiers--i.e. Certain units always treat modifiers of Circle to Movement as Triangle instead or terrain that has a modifier of Pentagon can only be traversed by models with Jump, Fly, or Grapples or terrain/debuffs/whatever removing a point from the Movement characteristic while leaving the actual distance moved untouched, allowing for things like a Pentagon or Square movement unit to get hit by a debuff and be far, far more affected than a similar unit that moves Circle or Triangle to be utterly hosed and basically cease to be able to function.
And with it is barely workable... even though it seems that it doesn't matter at all.
More's the pity, because it really does seem like a fairly solid concept if it truly has been utilized correctly and if they hadn't been willing to expose the "bones" of the measurements right out of the gate.
Kanluwen wrote: There was context. You just have chosen to dislike it.
No. It simply is even worse that way.
The context? You look at the measurement tools. You move 3 circles worth of distance, meaning place the tool 3 times to make your move.
Which makes it three times as likely that people will measure wrong, yes. We discussed that, and I said already that had they used range sticks ala X-Wing or the like (1-Circle, 2-Circle, etc) that would have been workable. But it's not, it's "add three times the chance of error".
More's the pity, because it really does seem like a fairly solid concept if it truly has been utilized correctly and if they hadn't been willing to expose the "bones" of the measurements right out of the gate.
There's the bones of a good idea there, yes. But I don't think those bones need the symbols.
Kanluwen wrote: There was context. You just have chosen to dislike it.
No. It simply is even worse that way.
As I said: you've just chosen to dislike it.
The context? You look at the measurement tools. You move 3 circles worth of distance, meaning place the tool 3 times to make your move.
Which makes it three times as likely that people will measure wrong, yes. We discussed that, and I said already that had they used range sticks ala X-Wing or the like (1-Circle, 2-Circle, etc) that would have been workable. But it's not, it's "add three times the chance of error".
You literally cannot screw up movement with this system, unless you're actively trying to or you cannot recognize the shapes given on the datacards.
More's the pity, because it really does seem like a fairly solid concept if it truly has been utilized correctly and if they hadn't been willing to expose the "bones" of the measurements right out of the gate.
There's the bones of a good idea there, yes. But I don't think those bones need the symbols.
And I don't think we needed to know the exact numbers each corresponded to before the game is even out. All this doom and gloom over the system all because what, there's shapes on a ruler instead of numbers? Oh noes!
Kanluwen wrote: You literally cannot screw up movement with this system, unless you're actively trying to or you cannot recognize the shapes given on the datacards.
Putting three times on the table, sequentially, the same ruler to mark the distance moved? Right, no chance at all to screw it. It's not as if people didn't already screw putting a ruler just the one time...
And I don't think we needed to know the exact numbers each corresponded to before the game is even out. All this doom and gloom over the system all because what, there's shapes on a ruler instead of numbers? Oh noes!
Yes, sure, just because of that.
Kepp building up that strawman. It's looking real pretty from down here.
Maybe read what I said? like when I said "using 1-Circle, 2-Circle etc rulers"? That might give you a hint that the symbols, per se, are not the problem, if they decided to go that way.
Why do people always characterise negative feedback as "doom and gloom" and other hyperbolic nonsense?
It's fine to say "I don't like symbols if numbers would communicate the information more clearly" and it's not some ridiculous overly negative statement. Trying to make out that it is is just dishonest argument.
What is the advantage of symbols over numbers for the end user?
Ghaz wrote: Well, there's no 1- or 2-sided shapes that they could use. As to why they decided to use it
Yup, because - = don't exist. Or say o 8. Or 1 2. Or A B. Or I II. Or...
Kanluwen wrote:Bluntly, if they hadn't posted the stupid "conversion" image? I don't think it would have been as big of a deal.
Yeah, no one would look at the symbols and asked 'why the stupid, making no sense, illogical progression when you could have sorted it by number of sides and make it maybe not elegant, but usable'. Or look at the gauge and went 'hey, wait a minute, these are just inches, why you can't use numbers or symbols that actually make sense'.
Maybe you are incapable of seeing things without a picture from GW, but please don't assume others can't add 2 to 2
Kanluwen wrote:Yeah, really wish they would have just left the "mystery" in and just shown off the gauge and shown how modifiers work. I was worried about them waffling very quickly on this.
You mean 'notice how stupid the mechanics are once people pointed it out then went full damage control mode by trying to de-stupid them so people still click buy'? Because yeah, they ""waffled"" on dumb design and are trying to fix it now. But in sane circles, it's called 'customer support' not 'waffling'. Unless you think replacing square wheels on car with round ones is 'waffling' on genius design no one is smart enough to understand too?
chaos0xomega was absolutely correct when he said that the use of those range bands opened the design space to use them different ways, which would have been cool. But today's article indicates that's not the case, so currently if feels more than a bit gimmicky.
Kinda feels like they saw how stuff worked in other modern games and went "I want some of that action" without understanding the underlaying reasons why those games did it.
Nightlord1987 wrote: Symbols just makes referencing the data cards more important.
Not a big deal if you ask me.
Plus aren't half of the players used to Gamer type controls? Or is Xbox and Playstation doing things wrong too.
Let's see:
You were saying?
Gee, I have no idea which two buttons here are supposed to be 1-2 and which 3-4. Maybe because these symbols actually make sense?
I don't mind symbols instead of numbers. But with symbols being stupid mess and melee combat peeing all over realism/elite units I am starting to doubt anyone not just playtested rules, but even proofread them at all...
Nightlord1987 wrote: Symbols just makes referencing the data cards more important.
Not a big deal if you ask me.
Plus aren't half of the players used to Gamer type controls? Or is Xbox and Playstation doing things wrong too.
Let's see:
You were saying?
Gee, I have no idea which two buttons here are supposed to be 1-2 and which 3-4. Maybe because these symbols actually make sense?
I don't mind symbols instead of numbers. But with symbols being stupid mess and melee combat peeing all over realism/elite units I am starting to doubt anyone not just playtested rules, but even proofread them at all...
This is quite possibly one of the more cryptic posts I've seen on DakkaDakka. Are... A and B 1 and 2 because they're the first two letters of the alphabet? and Y is 3 because.. 3 lines? and X is made of 4 branches so it is 4?
Or is X 2 because it has 2 lines, and B is 3 because it looks like a 3 with an extra line? A is a 4 with an extra line, so must be 4?
or are A, B, X, and Y, A, B, X and Y, and not 1,2,3,4 at all?
Well, I would think A=1, B=2, X=3 and Z=4, just by regular progression, but I wouldn't usually associate those with any measurement, same way I would never really associate the playstation pad symbols for measurements either ^^.
chaos0xomega wrote: They revealed in more depth how the movement system works.
Awful.
They should have just used numbers. As user kodos theorized, they used the shapes because they saw others doing it, but had no idea why they were doing it.
Predictably so. Somewhere in those long posts of yours you praised proprietary tools with the caveat, and I'm only going to paraphrase here, if done well. You can save yourself a whole lot of typing in a thread about a GW game and just write that. GW's current rules designers aren't good at their job. Haven't been since they fully took over from the older designers that used to work at GW, and haven't gotten any better since.
That's if you define their job as designing games. More accurately they're there to help sell toy soldiers. They seem to be better at that.
Didn't you even speculate yourself earlier that some GW manager may have seen others use proprietary tools and mandated their inclusion in Kill Team without any game related reason? Well, here we are. And I'll just repeat myself: predictably so.
When were those old designers? People complained about GW rules as far as I can remember, which is 1997 or so. Maybe in the 80s and early 90s they were on par with everyone else, but after that the changing landscape outpaced them in terms of rules design because the goal was to 1) not rock the boat too much for existing players 2) drive the sale of models.
or are A, B, X, and Y, A, B, X and Y, and not 1,2,3,4 at all?
Seeing as the symbols are not tied to any numerical value (to the operator anyway), the post is pointless. X on a gamepad isn't a number, it's an action within the game, and as games have near limitless number of actions possible, the symbol needs to be abstract. Whereas in Kill Team a triangle is ALWAYS and ONLY an inch. There is no other option. It will not turn into "triangle=shooting attack" at any point.
Controller buttons don't have to represent a numeric value. It doesn't matter which button is button 1 and which one is button 2, because it'll just pop up on the screen "press A".
Ranges do have a numerical value, which is why it's silly we don't just use the symbols we've already assigned them, 1, 2, 3 instead of triangle, circle, square.
There's no real value in comparing controllers to ranges in a wargame, they have different goals.
Video game controllers? A useless comparison. Playstation controllers are not used to measure distances. The main problem with GW's silly symbols is that when I look at a game board, I don't think "hmm, that one is 3 circles away... the other one is triangle square...."
Using the gauge three times to move a mini 6" is dumb. This system adds unnecessary steps.
Kanluwen wrote: I'm hesitant to lay it all at the game designers' feet. I'll be interested to see which playtest groups get credited and if this was intended to tie in to the mass market boardgames that have been shown off earlier this year(which all look to be hex-based).
No, no, no, no, no. (No.) Games designers are responsible and accountable for the rules they write according to the design brief they are given. Play testers feedback, advise and suggest. No more. The designer is responsible for taking that on board (or not) to build and refine the game rules. The quality of the rules is never the fault of the play testers.
And even if the play testing is gak, that’s ALSO down to the games designer for not building a quality enough play testing group!
Now gamers designers can be sabotaged in their efforts by a bad brief, not given enough time or support, etc. That’s where the studio management and the product owner come in. And ofc us punters have no idea about any of that. That’s still not the fault of playtesters tho.
Bob? Looks like our tape measure sales just aren’t what they could be. Just too many places to buy non Hobby tape measures. Any chance our next game could work in a virtually mandatory proprietary measurement device?
Okay. Thanks, Bob. I knew I could count on you to be a team player. Oooh, while you’re at it, maybe put some shaped symbols on the gauge. Kids love those.
Gotta run. I’m cutting and pasting incorrect weapons and equipment into our next under city release. What? Yeah, of course we’re going to release something for gritty under city just weeks before we drop a new edition for it.
Suckas! All right, gotta go.
Albertorius wrote: chaos0xomega was absolutely correct when he said that the use of those range bands opened the design space to use them different ways, which would have been cool. But today's article indicates that's not the case, so currently if feels more than a bit gimmicky.
Kinda feels like they saw how stuff worked in other modern games and went "I want some of that action" without understanding the underlaying reasons why those games did it.
Fully agree. Lots of interesting ways to have worked with this. On current info, GW seem to have taken advantage of little of them, leaving it as a added complication gimmick for no benefit.
privateer4hire wrote: Bob? Looks like our tape measure sales just aren’t what they could be. Just too many places to buy non Hobby tape measures. Any chance our next game could work in a virtually mandatory proprietary measurement device?
Okay. Thanks, Bob. I knew I could count on you to be a team player. Oooh, while you’re at it, maybe put some shaped symbols on the gauge. Kids love those.
Gotta run. I’m cutting and pasting incorrect weapons and equipment into our next under city release. What? Yeah, of course we’re going to release something for gritty under city just weeks before we drop a new edition for it. Suckas! All right, gotta go.
"Introducing... the Citadel 'Munitorum Farsight Targetranger'
I am absolutely BLOWN AWAY by the incredible design of this thing. What do you think Eddie?"
privateer4hire wrote: Bob? Looks like our tape measure sales just aren’t what they could be. Just too many places to buy non Hobby tape measures. Any chance our next game could work in a virtually mandatory proprietary measurement device?
Okay. Thanks, Bob. I knew I could count on you to be a team player. Oooh, while you’re at it, maybe put some shaped symbols on the gauge. Kids love those.
Gotta run. I’m cutting and pasting incorrect weapons and equipment into our next under city release. What? Yeah, of course we’re going to release something for gritty under city just weeks before we drop a new edition for it.
Suckas! All right, gotta go.
“Must use a proprietary measurement device” is a perfectly reasonable part of a design brief. That’s no excuse for a piss poor implementation by the game designer.
Kanluwen wrote: You literally cannot screw up movement with this system, unless you're actively trying to or you cannot recognize the shapes given on the datacards.
Putting three times on the table, sequentially, the same ruler to mark the distance moved? Right, no chance at all to screw it. It's not as if people didn't already screw putting a ruler just the one time...
The number of times the ruler is placed is not the issue when you see people screwing up.
It's what they're measuring from or when they do the "bends" for corners and the like.
And I don't think we needed to know the exact numbers each corresponded to before the game is even out. All this doom and gloom over the system all because what, there's shapes on a ruler instead of numbers? Oh noes!
Yes, sure, just because of that.
Kepp building up that strawman. It's looking real pretty from down here.
Maybe read what I said? like when I said "using 1-Circle, 2-Circle etc rulers"? That might give you a hint that the symbols, per se, are not the problem, if they decided to go that way.
If you say so. That's not the impression I've been getting from your posts, but whatever.
Kanluwen wrote: The number of times the ruler is placed is not the issue when you see people screwing up.
It's what they're measuring from or when they do the "bends" for corners and the like.
Hum, the number of times you have to place the rulers is totally a failure point. If yo have to put it thrice, there's three points where you may misplace it, measure a little more, etc.
If instead of a single "Circle" gauge that you have to place you use a "3-Circle" stick or measure 6'' (or whatever the measure could have been, it's not really important) with a ruler, there's two points of failure less (you'll always have two when measuring, after all; start point and end point). It's as simple as that.
To me, that feels like adding complexity for no gain.
Eh it's not THAT bad, people will train their brains to associate the shapes=numbers pretty quickly. It is entirely pointless and comes across as dumb compared to just... using inches, but I think every human alive today has a lot of experience dealing with dumb pointless things.
I haven't seen anybody saying it looks unplayable. They're saying it looks stupid, unneccessary, extra, ripped-off-from-other-games-while-still-misunderstood, etc.
I haven't seen anybody saying it looks unplayable. They're saying it looks stupid, unneccessary, extra, ripped-off-from-other-games-while-still-misunderstood, etc.
I think it's more the pages of tedious stuff about a very minor feature, rather than people complaining about it being unplayable.
I haven't seen anybody saying it looks unplayable. They're saying it looks stupid, unneccessary, extra, ripped-off-from-other-games-while-still-misunderstood, etc.
I think it's more the pages of tedious stuff about a very minor feature, rather than people complaining about it being unplayable.
privateer4hire wrote: Bob? Looks like our tape measure sales just aren’t what they could be. Just too many places to buy non Hobby tape measures. Any chance our next game could work in a virtually mandatory proprietary measurement device?
Okay. Thanks, Bob. I knew I could count on you to be a team player. Oooh, while you’re at it, maybe put some shaped symbols on the gauge. Kids love those.
Gotta run. I’m cutting and pasting incorrect weapons and equipment into our next under city release. What? Yeah, of course we’re going to release something for gritty under city just weeks before we drop a new edition for it.
Suckas! All right, gotta go.
"Introducing... the Citadel 'Munitorum Farsight Targetranger'
I am absolutely BLOWN AWAY by the incredible design of this thing. What do you think Eddie?"
No comparison! Especially not to other games—-if anything else could exist outside the HhhHobby—set in, say, a galaxy far away or some such. Don’t buy third party knockoffs. Make yours Marvel. Er, I meant ‘our official stuff’, of course.
I haven't seen anybody saying it looks unplayable. They're saying it looks stupid, unneccessary, extra, ripped-off-from-other-games-while-still-misunderstood, etc.
I think it's more the pages of tedious stuff about a very minor feature, rather than people complaining about it being unplayable.
Its not that bad.
I’d argue it’s a pretty major feature.
It is incredibly minor.
If you don't like it, just use a tape measure and go through the minor inconvenience of memorising what 4 symbols mean.
I haven't seen anybody saying it looks unplayable. They're saying it looks stupid, unneccessary, extra, ripped-off-from-other-games-while-still-misunderstood, etc.
I think it's more the pages of tedious stuff about a very minor feature, rather than people complaining about it being unplayable.
Its not that bad.
I’d argue it’s a pretty major feature.
It is incredibly minor.
If you don't like it, just use a tape measure and go through the minor inconvenience of memorising what 4 symbols mean.
Distances in Kill Team are ultimately still measured in inches, so you’re very welcome to stick to your trusty tape measure if you prefer.
Indeed... which, of course, begs the question "...so, if it's so very minor, and it adds so very little to the game, why is it there, again?"
Anyways, it is what it is. I wasn't planning on using their gauges anyways, I don't really like the things, so it's either X-Wing/Saga style sticks or just tape, and probably fixing all the stats for numbers, just for coherency.
I, for one, am chuffed to bits about the smashing success of this totally new design feature of the new totally "not-40k" 40k game. I look forward to what the brilliant designers Tinky Winky and Po are going to suprise us with next.
Arschbombe wrote: I, for one, am chuffed to bits about the smashing success of this totally new design feature of the new totally "not-40k" 40k game. I look forward to what the brilliant designers Tinky Winky and Po are going to suprise us with next.
Distances in Kill Team are ultimately still measured in inches, so you’re very welcome to stick to your trusty tape measure if you prefer.
Indeed... which, of course, begs the question "...so, if it's so very minor, and it adds so very little to the game, why is it there, again?"
Anyways, it is what it is. I wasn't planning on using their gauges anyways, I don't really like the things, so it's either X-Wing/Saga style sticks or just tape, and probably fixing all the stats for numbers, just for coherency.
Its an attempt to make things easier to follow. It's not objectively better or worse than anything else.
Sure, some people would prefer a different aesthetic choice but it's trivial to convert into normal inches. It's just not a big deal.
Vorian wrote: Its an attempt to make things easier to follow. It's not objectively better or worse than anything else.
Sure, some people would prefer a different aesthetic choice but it's trivial to convert into normal inches. It's just not a big deal.
Well, given that they've shown that they're just replacing numbers with a combination of number+symbol, and that there's a learning curve to that (whereas there's no learning curve for numbers), I'd say that yes, it is actually objectively worse.
Again, I would have a different opinion if they had done... something with them. But they have not.
H.B.M.C. wrote: But why do it in the first place? Why add more steps? It's counter-intuitive. It's reinventing the wheel.
Exactly. Pointless addition just to sell some combat gauges.
But the gauges are in the box, so it's not even that. It's just pointless. Probably some marketing guy walked down to the studio one day and demanded "put in color coded measuring sticks" on a whim without further context, and left. James Hewitt described behaviour like this after he quit GW.
Vorian wrote: Its a small design choice you may or may not like. Not really sure how it's fueled 4 days of discussion.
Because it add more steps, for nothing. Because it adds an extraneous new factor, for nothing. Because they don't do anything with it, once they have added it, so, again, for nothing.
And because sometimes discussing stuff is fun, and it might even help you see other points of view.
Vorian wrote: I can only repeat that that extra step is multiplying 3 by 2 or something equally trivial.
I don't want to contribute to keeping this tedious line of discussion going so I'll stop there.
Well, that and placing the gauges multiple times instead of once, which will usually add the uncertainties.
Don't use the gauge then, I won't be.
Oh, I won't. But won't use the symboled sheets either.
Thing is, it seems like I would need to do a lot of things to make the game play better, you know? For something that doesn't seem to add anything at all? I don't think any of these are all that onerous... but they don't bring anything to the table either, so...
chaos0xomega wrote: They revealed in more depth how the movement system works.
Awful.
They should have just used numbers. As user kodos theorized, they used the shapes because they saw others doing it, but had no idea why they were doing it.
Predictably so. Somewhere in those long posts of yours you praised proprietary tools with the caveat, and I'm only going to paraphrase here, if done well. You can save yourself a whole lot of typing in a thread about a GW game and just write that. GW's current rules designers aren't good at their job. Haven't been since they fully took over from the older designers that used to work at GW, and haven't gotten any better since.
That's if you define their job as designing games. More accurately they're there to help sell toy soldiers. They seem to be better at that.
Didn't you even speculate yourself earlier that some GW manager may have seen others use proprietary tools and mandated their inclusion in Kill Team without any game related reason? Well, here we are. And I'll just repeat myself: predictably so.
When were those old designers? People complained about GW rules as far as I can remember, which is 1997 or so. Maybe in the 80s and early 90s they were on par with everyone else, but after that the changing landscape outpaced them in terms of rules design because the goal was to 1) not rock the boat too much for existing players 2) drive the sale of models.
Unless you can provide a ratio of satisfied to dissatisfied customers, people complaining about GW isn't a good indication of anything. Even if you did, that'd be an indication of popularity more than quality. And it's not really what I'm talking about.
You can see the rules getting cruddaced, for want of a better word, throughout 5th ed and culminating in 6th ed as a ruleset that was entirely written by designers that used the framework of 3rd ed but had none of its original designers on the job anymore. 6th ed wasn't a particularly good edition and got replaced by 7th after only 23 months. Even with GW's desire to shorten edition lifespans to get the cash injections from new edition releases, which have since stabilized at 3 years, that's an awfully short lifespan for an edition. It wouldn't be wrong to consider 6th ed the paid beta for 7th ed. Even so, 7th ed, as we are all aware of, had major issues that outshone anything we got before.
When 8th ed came around to show what these designers could do without the framework provided by older designers, the result wasn't much different than I expected and the designers dropped many of the proven mechanics of old only to go overboard on new or revived mechanics that didn't work properly. That's really where I get the impression that the current designers aren't even adequate at their job. Just for a moment throw out this notion that game design has moved on and other companies are doing it better, and all this worship of modern mechanics and game design paradigms. Consider that GW is decidedly conservative in how 40k is constructed. Consider how if nothing is supposed to dramatically change, GW has an archive of rules that either proved to work or didn't that spans more than twenty years from when the current designers had to write rules on their own. They have a lot of rules and data to draw from and they make the same old mistakes that should have gotten recognized and ironed out since the first time a similar mechanic or complex rules interaction was implemented. But as far as I can see, time and again they're not just not learning from past mistakes, they're also making them worse in the latest incarnations.
All just my opinion of course and speaking fairly broadly, but as someone who never considered GW's games to be flawless I'd call out these two drop off points as outstanding declines in quality that don't have equivalents among GW's varying offerings of the past as well as fair points for getting before/after comparisons that give a good indication of how little the current game designers understand game design.
H.B.M.C. wrote: But why do it in the first place? Why add more steps? It's counter-intuitive. It's reinventing the wheel.
Exactly. Pointless addition just to sell some combat gauges.
But the gauges are in the box, so it's not even that.
Yeah, but not everyone will get the box, just the book, and they still will need a gauge so they will be sold separately for sure
There were some posts that said the new Kill Team box was called out as a launch box on stream, and thus limited, so it's not just that not everybody will get the box, but not everybody can get the box during the edition's lifespan. That's a pretty decent reason for getting individual movement tool sales.
Vorian wrote: I can only repeat that that extra step is multiplying 3 by 2 or something equally trivial.
I don't want to contribute to keeping this tedious line of discussion going so I'll stop there.
Well, that and placing the gauges multiple times instead of once, which will usually add the uncertainties.
I might have missed it, is the idea to place the gauge at the front of the base then move the model forward so the back of the base touches the gauge (effectively making your movement distance the gauge length + the base size), or do you place the gauge next to the model and then move it that far?
If it's the former, it wouldn't be too bad from an uncertainty perspective (until you get models that are bigger than their bases).
Vorian wrote: I can only repeat that that extra step is multiplying 3 by 2 or something equally trivial.
I don't want to contribute to keeping this tedious line of discussion going so I'll stop there.
Well, that and placing the gauges multiple times instead of once, which will usually add the uncertainties.
I might have missed it, is the idea to place the gauge at the front of the base then move the model forward so the back of the base touches the gauge (effectively making your movement distance the gauge length + the base size), or do you place the gauge next to the model and then move it that far?
If it's the former, it wouldn't be too bad from an uncertainty perspective (until you get models that are bigger than their bases).
From what we can see, it's the second: you place the gauge next to the model sequentially as many times as the number in the stat, and the last placing tells you how far can it go.
Particularly because they've already said that "you can just use inches instead".
I would've liked to pick a BS (funny acronym) box, but I'd ratter wait for multiparts. If they release a Battleforce or even CP I'd try to get one instead.
Props to GW for having the Queue system, I wasn't there to check it out, but the real trial by fire will be Tzeentch vs. GK, I suppouse; and then see how savage will the sales get for Battleforces for this year.
CMLR wrote: I would've liked to pick a BS (funny acronym) box, but I'd ratter wait for multiparts. If they release a Battleforce or even CP I'd try to get one instead.
Props to GW for having the Queue system, I wasn't there to check it out, but the real trial by fire will be Tzeentch vs. GK, I suppouse; and then see how savage will the sales get for Battleforces for this year.
Despite the queue system, the box sold out in less than a minute in Australia.
CMLR wrote: I would've liked to pick a BS (funny acronym) box, but I'd ratter wait for multiparts. If they release a Battleforce or even CP I'd try to get one instead.
Props to GW for having the Queue system, I wasn't there to check it out, but the real trial by fire will be Tzeentch vs. GK, I suppouse; and then see how savage will the sales get for Battleforces for this year.
Despite the queue system, the box sold out in less than a minute in Australia.
It is 40K and it is not an edition lauch box, and it is Australia.
I would've have like to see how fast it sold out on the international store, but I wasn't going to grab it and stay awake at 4 am for that.
Yeah, it's like the lumineth boxset. Only the sister one was snapfit/easy to build.
Part of me wonders if they'd pull a Slaves to Darkness start collecting, and release the new boyz in a Combat Patrol box. That's apparently what they're doing with the "old" sisters from the aforementioned boxset
CMLR wrote: I would've liked to pick a BS (funny acronym) box, but I'd ratter wait for multiparts.
These ARE multiparts. The Beast Snagga box is just bundled retail products available early plus a special cover for the book and box for the cards.
Ok, didn't bothered to check any further after the "no longer available". The preview articles made it look like there were only pushfit models for the Boys. They look really limited in poses.
CMLR wrote: I would've liked to pick a BS (funny acronym) box, but I'd ratter wait for multiparts.
These ARE multiparts. The Beast Snagga box is just bundled retail products available early plus a special cover for the book and box for the cards.
Ok, didn't bothered to check any further after the "no longer available". The preview articles made it look like there were only pushfit models for the Boys. They look really limited in poses.
Oh, they are. But they're limited pose multiparts, rather than limited pose pushfits.
Made a trip to my”local” GW and got one of the Stormcast models. I usually won’t make the trip because of the extra half hour drive past anywhere I would go, but free is free. They had piles of the sprues for it on the table even though the store employee said they only had 4 left when I called and would not put one aside for me. The ones they gave out were ones he had assembled to show how to use the GW tools to cut the sprues and their glue. He also had a half dozen that were painted (basecoated) gold, possibly by young children as parts were missed and it was super sloppy. Employee was playing a game of AOS with a friend and too busy to even answer the ringing phone, much less talk to me once I asked where the Stormcast model was.
I got a free model and should be happy. Felt bad for not buying anything there, which I was going to, but when an employee won’t answer a phone or break away from a game while they are “working”, I didn’t feel quit as bad.
It did get me to stop on my way home and buy the Dominion box set from my local store though , the proportions on the new models and the fact that the armor looks more like armor and not a big robot with a dumb head is a bonus. Plus going to print a bunch of he sallet style helmets for my army after seeing that done in the Warhammer community Article.
I might be digging up stuff people already know here, but I haven't read this anywhere myself or know of anyone who has spotted it so it may be worth mentioning.
The new DKOK plastics... One of them is a grenadier, I was talking to someone today saying it would be a shame if they don't follow up the DKOK with other units, grenadiers being one of them as they are iconic to the regiment. Then was looking at the images today and it clicked, one is a grenadier. Skull mask and extra armour plating (heavy carapace) on the chest. The only thing it is lacking is the shin armour plates and potentially the heavy lasgun, and the breathing regulator is not on the back but in the front (encased in armour).
Which now begs the question, can the whole unit be built as grenadiers (or scions rules wise). It's the demo veteran, 4th in (2nd from the right), marked as the demo veteran on the killteam website.
This could be a case of re-using the design for the demo specialism as a nod, but here's hoping it means grenadiers can be built, or a proper unit is incoming.
Unfortunately, it's not a Grenadier--but it is a nod to the Grenadiers. If you look a bit closer you'll notice that the 'chestplate' is just a slab of metal over top of the rebreather's filtration system...which is chest-mounted here unlike the Grenadiers' backpack mounted system.
The faceplates are supposed to be retained if the wearer so chooses after they've served their obligatory stint in the Grenadiers. Grenadiers get heavier bits for their legs and shoulders which are missing.
The faceplates, additionally, are symbolic. It's for someone to acknowledge that they likely will die while in the Grenadiers. Makes sense that a Demolitions Specialist would retain it IMO.
Kanluwen wrote: Unfortunately, it's not a Grenadier--but it is a nod to the Grenadiers. If you look a bit closer you'll notice that the 'chestplate' is just a slab of metal over top of the rebreather's filtration system...which is chest-mounted here unlike the Grenadiers' backpack mounted system.
The faceplates are supposed to be retained if the wearer so chooses after they've served their obligatory stint in the Grenadiers. Grenadiers get heavier bits for their legs and shoulders which are missing.
The faceplates, additionally, are symbolic. It's for someone to acknowledge that they likely will die while in the Grenadiers. Makes sense that a Demolitions Specialist would retain it IMO.
Whilst I agree with what you say, the normal kriegsman have been redesigned in some respect, the attachment to the gas mask (a change I dislike personally), the shoulder plates are larger, the backpack has been changed from a two, to one main compartment... Small but changes none the less. The designs are being updated, and it makes some sense that if they were going to do a duel unit kit, some changes would be made to accommodate with a re-design. I'm not giving up hope... Yet anyway.
You're welcome to have hope, I'm just saying that the Grenadier faceplate isn't necessarily exclusive to the Grenadiers themselves.
I have a feeling that if they were going to do a dual unit kit? We would have seen evidence of it on the sprues. As it stands, there were maybe two of these Grenadier faceplates all told. No hellguns/hotshot lasguns, no backpack mounted respirators, no extra plating for the legs, etc.
There is a rumor that there are Krieg Command Squad, Death Rider, and a Combat Engineer/Grenadier sets coming when the DKoK set goes on general release though.
Kanluwen wrote: Unfortunately, it's not a Grenadier--but it is a nod to the Grenadiers. If you look a bit closer you'll notice that the 'chestplate' is just a slab of metal over top of the rebreather's filtration system...which is chest-mounted here unlike the Grenadiers' backpack mounted system.
The faceplates are supposed to be retained if the wearer so chooses after they've served their obligatory stint in the Grenadiers. Grenadiers get heavier bits for their legs and shoulders which are missing.
The faceplates, additionally, are symbolic. It's for someone to acknowledge that they likely will die while in the Grenadiers. Makes sense that a Demolitions Specialist would retain it IMO.
Whilst I agree with what you say, the normal kriegsman have been redesigned in some respect, the attachment to the gas mask (a change I dislike personally), the shoulder plates are larger, the backpack has been changed from a two, to one main compartment... Small but changes none the less. The designs are being updated, and it makes some sense that if they were going to do a duel unit kit, some changes would be made to accommodate with a re-design. I'm not giving up hope... Yet anyway.
While the normal guardsman have been redesigned, their new look is a relatively minimal change - pretty much the slightly diferent gasmask and the extra and non-layered shoulder pads. If that Guardsman there is meant to be a Grenadier, then that means they've significant changed their look into something only barely recognizable as Krieg Grenadiers. He doesn't have the shin armour, the proper carapace armour plate, the back-mounted filter or the actual skull mask (it appears to just be painted on). Nearly all the defining elements would be either removed, or replaced with a lesser version.
, the proportions on the new models and the fact that the armor looks more like armor and not a big robot with a dumb head is a bonus. Plus going to print a bunch of he sallet style helmets for my army after seeing that done in the Warhammer community Article.
