I don't know about you but I find GW's idea of adding beta rules into White Dwarf to be a really terrible idea for several reasons:
It adds to the "bulk" of books to bring
They are mostly untested and could be really overpowered vs existing model cost (that Bolter one for example is a massive boost)
It can cause friction in games
The latter point being for example where you are playing at a club, you want to play your new beta rule because it's a huge advantage and your opponent doesn't. It's a good way to cause friction in a game where the rules should be a constant.
Don't get me wrong, beta missions and scenarios wouldn't be so bad, but look at some of the major impacts previous rules have had / are having:
Deepstriking was heavily nerfed
Spamming units was nerfed
Fly units were nerfed
Ultimately, the above have arguably helped to balance the game, but at the same time demonstrated how such beta rules can have a major impact
Ongoing design that aims to balance things out is a good thing in almost all frameworks, doubly so in a GW game. As long as they stick with a couple of beta rules at a time, they are not a burden on anyone. Just as it is with the FAQs, you have access to all these things via the internet or you can print a page or two of those relevant to you to bring along. It's 21st century, after all.
If your opponent doesn't want them, ask why. Are they tired and just want their escapism without any further thought that day? Do they powerplay and want their cheese left alone as long as they can? No, beta rules are a good thing.
From a game-design perspective, they are a good idea.
Even if they weren't, if they'd get people to have a short pre-game chat at their club or store and communicate on what kind of game they wanna play, that alone would've made em worth it.
Not sure how a White Dwarf realistically adds to the "book burden" either. The last roughly 500 games I played against people bringing a FW unit (including at large tournaments), I don't think a single person actually had a FW index book for rules reference along for the game. It was all just Battlescribe or maybe a fishy print-out, if you're lucky.
I thinn the beta rules are quite nice. Way better than CA that actually adds to the book burden. The beta rules have been available online for free and also limited i scope, so they have been easy to remember
Do you remember when GW came up with these fantastic new flyer rules that were now mandatory. (go the buy to book you consumer pig) In it there were 3-5 pages of rules... and a new phase... I like Beta rules.
It's great that GW is actively trying to improve the game for the better.
I don't think game design should hinge on player feedback however. There is way too much whining, poor understanding, and faction bias that basically goes into 9 out of 10 posts made by players. I expect the designers of the game to be more competent in making such decisions than the players.
On the flipside, if they are asking the RIGHT players like Nick N, etc, or just using it as a chance to view how the game plays like that for themselves, than all the more power to beta rules. I just don't want people like some of the posters on here to be having any influence whatsoever on the outcome of rules because it can only be for the worse in comparison to the design team making that call themselves, assuming they are skilled at their job, which one would hope.
I have to join the wave of posters disagreeing with you here, OP. Testing something prior to its official release is a great idea and not just for rules but for literally almost any product one can imagine: software & games, food, technology, medicines, services. Heck, come to think of it, even films and TV shows have pilots and test screenings, so even literal plot is not immune to testing.
As for whether or not beta testing is as valuable as focus testing, well from my experience with software development, I can tell you it's invaluable. Experienced testers find the bugs they expect to find, but only customers can find the really nasty gak.
Not sure how a White Dwarf realistically adds to the "book burden" either. The last roughly 500 games I played against people bringing a FW unit (including at large tournaments), I don't think a single person actually had a FW index book for rules reference along for the game. It was all just Battlescribe or maybe a fishy print-out, if you're lucky.
You don't have rules with you, you won't play vs me. No battlescribe is not enough. Too much errors there and top of that it's not like they are closed where only select few can alter them. If you disagree have fun playing with my unit that shoots heavy 20 S10 -4 D6 shots. Honest! Look at this battlescribe print!
Not sure how a White Dwarf realistically adds to the "book burden" either. The last roughly 500 games I played against people bringing a FW unit (including at large tournaments), I don't think a single person actually had a FW index book for rules reference along for the game. It was all just Battlescribe or maybe a fishy print-out, if you're lucky.
You don't have rules with you, you won't play vs me. No battlescribe is not enough. Too much errors there and top of that it's not like they are closed where only select few can alter them. If you disagree have fun playing with my unit that shoots heavy 20 S10 -4 D6 shots. Honest! Look at this battlescribe print!
Not sure how a White Dwarf realistically adds to the "book burden" either. The last roughly 500 games I played against people bringing a FW unit (including at large tournaments), I don't think a single person actually had a FW index book for rules reference along for the game. It was all just Battlescribe or maybe a fishy print-out, if you're lucky.
You don't have rules with you, you won't play vs me. No battlescribe is not enough. Too much errors there and top of that it's not like they are closed where only select few can alter them. If you disagree have fun playing with my unit that shoots heavy 20 S10 -4 D6 shots. Honest! Look at this battlescribe print!
I'm inclined to agree re: battlescribe, but thankfully smartphones and portable document formats are a thing.
Not sure how a White Dwarf realistically adds to the "book burden" either. The last roughly 500 games I played against people bringing a FW unit (including at large tournaments), I don't think a single person actually had a FW index book for rules reference along for the game. It was all just Battlescribe or maybe a fishy print-out, if you're lucky.
You don't have rules with you, you won't play vs me. No battlescribe is not enough. Too much errors there and top of that it's not like they are closed where only select few can alter them. If you disagree have fun playing with my unit that shoots heavy 20 S10 -4 D6 shots. Honest! Look at this battlescribe print!
I think it's (mostly) a bad idea in the sense that GW should have tested their rules changes and then released them as "official errata", rather than "perhaps/perhaps not optional rules".
For something much bigger like the sisters of battle codex I can kind of see the point, GW have rather lost direction with the faction and need all the help they can get at this point.
But for individual rules. Test them in-house and change them. And if they don't pan out then change them again, but commit to the changes.
I think stuff like beta rules and beta test, have lost their meaning. Right now beta testing or beta rules don't mean we are checking of the stuff works or doesn't work, but more like this if the final version deal with it, we just don't want to make it official or final, because then, in case of w40k, you may stop buying the books we print.
It is the best visible in how people play the game. Trying to make someone play without the beta rules is impossible, unless they happen to play an army which was invalidated by the changes. But those people either leave the game, because their only opponents could be armies with same problems, or they got a different army, and why bother with something that doesn't work when you have an army which is perfectly fine.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
A.T. wrote: I think it's (mostly) a bad idea in the sense that GW should have tested their rules changes and then released them as "official errata", rather than "perhaps/perhaps not optional rules".
For something much bigger like the sisters of battle codex I can kind of see the point, GW have rather lost direction with the faction and need all the help they can get at this point.
But for individual rules. Test them in-house and change them. And if they don't pan out then change them again, but commit to the changes.
I have seen a guy sell his BA to a new player, the new guy even asked for a cash discount, becauese an all jump pack army isn't that great, and all the vets jumped in and told him that those are just things that happen to BA, because of the beta rules, and that beta rules may get changed. The new guy just does know yet that all the store games are always played with the beta rules in effect.
Beta rules are great, it means players can test them.
And give feedback, it’s a matter if the dev team can read and understand that feedback.
Sometimes having everyone saying it’s awful is great feedback, even if they all think it’s for different reasons.
But I think most players should be able to understand beta rules, turn up and ask if it’s fine to use em. Or use Facebook, discord, phone to work it out ahead of time.
I think people's problems with beta rules have more to do with the fact that there is a uniform adoption of the rule rather than there being beta rules.
However, the reason I think there has been uniform adoption of beta rules is that so far they have been rules that actually addressed issued and felt fairer. If the beta rules were horrendous and made the game unplayable people would probably eschew them for the original rules.
Looking over the beta rules since the first big FAQ I have to say that each and every rule made the game better rather than not. Sure, it invalidated armies that were one-trick ponies, but for the health of the game that is a good thing.
BaconCatBug wrote: Considering we're up to eighty eight documents (at the time of writing) I really wish GW would consolidate stuff.
Beta Rules especially should be all in one place, online for free.
Absolutely agree.
Given that they aren't though, I really can't begrudge people for relying on Battlescribe.
Sure it has its limits, and everyone should look at the original sources ultimately for issues that arise. But in the middle of game, or when starting out with the game...
I really don't blame people these days.
Also, it's generally way more accurate than the detractors try to make out.
Darsath wrote: Paying for Beta rules is very silly. There really isn't much of an argument as to why players should be expected to pay to playtest new rules.
There really isn't much of an argument as to why we pay for any rules. And yet, by some sort of unwitting collective agreement, we all do. I really can't figure out how we can have a world where almost the entire internet relies on a pile of open source software and yet, the same philosophy hasn't yet been successfully applied to tiny plastic war dudes.
Darsath wrote: Paying for Beta rules is very silly. There really isn't much of an argument as to why players should be expected to pay to playtest new rules.
There really isn't much of an argument as to why we pay for any rules. And yet, by some sort of unconscious collective agreement, we all do. I really can't figure out how we can have a world where almost the entire internet relies on a pile of open source software and yet, the same philosophy hasn't yet been successfully applied to tiny plastic war dudes.
GW won't change while it thinks Codexes are profitable.
The moment they think that free rules will result in a net gain, I think we'd see them switch. It probably will happen, it's the way the world is turning. But it could take a long time yet!
Darsath wrote: Paying for Beta rules is very silly. There really isn't much of an argument as to why players should be expected to pay to playtest new rules.
There really isn't much of an argument as to why we pay for any rules. And yet, by some sort of unconscious collective agreement, we all do. I really can't figure out how we can have a world where almost the entire internet relies on a pile of open source software and yet, the same philosophy hasn't yet been successfully applied to tiny plastic war dudes.
GW won't change while it thinks Codexes are profitable.
The moment they think that free rules will result in a net gain, I think we'd see them switch. It probably will happen, it's the way the world is turning. But it could take a long time yet!
My confusion isn't about why GW won't do it; that's obvious. My confusion is about why we the community haven't done it ourselves.
As long as GW continues to make beta rules available to everyone and doesn't gate them inside an issue of WD I don't have a problem from an availability point of view. I think trying to develop the game is also good, certainly much better than previous version where problems would often sit unaddressed for years.
If anything I wouldn't mind seeing GW treat their beta rules as an opportunity to try more radical ideas and fixes. Right now it feels like beta rules end up being universally adopted immediately and don't see much change later. Some more experimentation might be useful for helping improve the game in unexppected ways. I think there'd be a perception problem if they tried that now, since people treat beta rules more like, well, rules now.
Darsath wrote: Paying for Beta rules is very silly. There really isn't much of an argument as to why players should be expected to pay to playtest new rules.
There really isn't much of an argument as to why we pay for any rules. And yet, by some sort of unwitting collective agreement, we all do. I really can't figure out how we can have a world where almost the entire internet relies on a pile of open source software and yet, the same philosophy hasn't yet been successfully applied to tiny plastic war dudes.
Working in software, let me assure you you do NOT want open source modeled rules, unless you want to start hiring experts who just so happen to contribute to the project to start making lists and playing for you. There's plenty of money being made off open source software and it's model does not ensure a quick and easy use experience.
Or we could have thousands of rules forks fall up their own holes because someone removed a small but basic rule they all relied on from distribution.
No, they charge for rules because people will pay for them. Same reason you pay for a boxed game when you already have dice and tokens you could use.
BaconCatBug wrote: They tried that when GW killed off WHFB, it was called The Ninth Age and it was Dead on Arrival.
You might want to tell all the ETC players that 9th Age was DoA, the hundreds of them that show up each year don't seem to have got the memo. I'm no big fan of the 9th Age system but to claim it's DoA is pretty wildly inaccurate.
My confusion is about why we the community haven't done it ourselves.
BaconCatBug wrote:They tried that when GW killed off WHFB, it was called The Ninth Age and it was Dead on Arrival.
And why do you think that is? Do you think it's fair to say that it must have been a generally poorer game than Age of Sigmar or do you think that people are so emotionally invested in Games-Workshop, that we will just eschew anything not produced by our "Lords and Masters" because we are all to afraid to think for ourselves?
XuQishi wrote:Because most of the time you'd end up with roughly 50.000 forks and nobody playing the same game.
The same is true of open source software, and yet despite all of the garbage that exists, there are a handful of gems out there. What I'm wondering is, if there are so many people out there creating their own home brew rules, then where are the gems?
Darsath wrote: Paying for Beta rules is very silly. There really isn't much of an argument as to why players should be expected to pay to playtest new rules.
As far as I can tell, all Beta rules are available online. I know Bolter Discipline is in WD but it is available online as well.
I think they are a great idea. And, generally speaking, a good (but not excellent) fixes for the problems of the game.
I also despise the fragmentation of sources and rulebook bloat... and in my opinion GW is (inadvertently) causing the demise of their own print rulebook system. Which will never happens too soon.
I already uses only digital codex by tablet, battle scribe and (just for tournament) the tactical deck (which includes anything even remotely useful in physical copy).
So, literally: the more GW pushes us to purchasing paper supplement with a short lifespan (especially if you compare them to substitute gaming product: board games, rpgs, even videogames), the happier I am because the sooner the system will collapse.
Sooner or later, they'll finally release an official subscription format for rules. In the meantime, my money will go to what's worth: models rather than rules.
BaconCatBug wrote: They tried that when GW killed off WHFB, it was called The Ninth Age and it was Dead on Arrival.
You might want to tell all the ETC players that 9th Age was DoA, the hundreds of them that show up each year don't seem to have got the memo. I'm no big fan of the 9th Age system but to claim it's DoA is pretty wildly inaccurate.
There Dozens of us! DOZENS!
Compared to the size of the playerbase pre-AOS I can assure you the T9A playerbase is a negligible blip, the vast majority of WHFB players simply quit or sucked it up and moved to AOS.
BaconCatBug wrote: They tried that when GW killed off WHFB, it was called The Ninth Age and it was Dead on Arrival.
You might want to tell all the ETC players that 9th Age was DoA, the hundreds of them that show up each year don't seem to have got the memo. I'm no big fan of the 9th Age system but to claim it's DoA is pretty wildly inaccurate.
There Dozens of us! DOZENS!
Compared to the size of the playerbase pre-AOS I can assure you the T9A playerbase is a negligible blip, the vast majority of WHFB players simply quit or sucked it up and moved to AOS.
There's a difference between not having the playerbase of the predecessor game and being DoA. All the evidence points to quite a few thousands of people playing 9th Age, mainly in mainland Europe. Personally I think the system is clunky and devoid of any character whatsoever but it clearly has appeal for a large number of gamers. I suspect the playerbase for it is quite a bit bigger than a lot of "proper" wargames on the market right now.
Compared to the size of the playerbase pre-AOS I can assure you the T9A playerbase is a negligible blip, the vast majority of WHFB players simply quit or sucked it up and moved to AOS.
I think that depends a lot on the country. AoS was not recived the same way it was in UK or US.
The smaller the intervals between rules changes the better in my opinion. Beta Rules can be released to quickly address problems that otherwise would have persisted until the next CA or FAQ.
Darsath wrote: Paying for Beta rules is very silly. There really isn't much of an argument as to why players should be expected to pay to playtest new rules.
As far as I can tell, all Beta rules are available online. I know Bolter Discipline is in WD but it is available online as well.
I personally don't mind the Beta rules. I think they are interesting ways to add changes in, and being of the old guard I remember when they used to do this in White Dwarf back in the day too.
What I'm not too keen on, but also don't really mind, is that the community immediately accepts Beta rules as gospel rather than try them out as Beta rules. I'm sure some people do that but most everyone I talk to seem to assume it will become official later and just treat it as official even when it's still Beta.
BaconCatBug wrote: They tried that when GW killed off WHFB, it was called The Ninth Age and it was Dead on Arrival.
You might want to tell all the ETC players that 9th Age was DoA, the hundreds of them that show up each year don't seem to have got the memo. I'm no big fan of the 9th Age system but to claim it's DoA is pretty wildly inaccurate.
There Dozens of us! DOZENS!
Compared to the size of the playerbase pre-AOS I can assure you the T9A playerbase is a negligible blip, the vast majority of WHFB players simply quit or sucked it up and moved to AOS.
That's the sort of logic that brings up the "GW has no competitors" BS, if you consider any game that can't match the size of GW's as being "Dead on Arrival". There seems to be a solid following for T9A and Kings of War as replacements for actual WHFB (and I think Warlord Games is coming out with their own game based on the Bolt Action/Gates of Antares rules)
Remember, when GW are play testing, they're doing so with a finite group over a finite period of time.
As soon as a rulebook or codex hits the market, it's seeing far more hours of play. That quickly throws up oddities and confisions. FAQs and Erratas can help here and there, but a Beta rule is, on occasion, warranted.
And that Beta rule is again expose to the widest possible set of playtesters - Us Nerds. Remember, they're actively looking for feedback. Is the rule just right? Does it need a tweak? Is it perhaps just way out, either not fixing the problem, missing the problem altogether, or swinging the pendulum too far in the opposite direction?
They're an important part of a healthy dialogue between players and writers.
Don't get me wrong, beta missions and scenarios wouldn't be so bad, but look at some of the major impacts previous rules have had / are having:
Deepstriking was heavily nerfed
Spamming units was nerfed
Fly units were nerfed
They're good. You forgot a major beta rule: Smite nerf.
See when Smite Nerf was a Beta Rule it affected *ALL* armies.
When it went live, the rule was changed that THOUSAND SONS and GREY KNIGHTS ignored it.
(Tzeentch Daemons should too imo, but that's neither here nor there)
Without the player feedback Smite nerf COULD have gone live where GK and TS were horribly gimped until the next CA / major FAQ where it *MIGHT* have gotten fixed.
I don't know about you but I find GW's idea of adding beta rules into White Dwarf to be a really terrible idea for several reasons:
It adds to the "bulk" of books to bring
They are mostly untested and could be really overpowered vs existing model cost (that Bolter one for example is a massive boost)
It can cause friction in games
The latter point being for example where you are playing at a club, you want to play your new beta rule because it's a huge advantage and your opponent doesn't. It's a good way to cause friction in a game where the rules should be a constant.
Don't get me wrong, beta missions and scenarios wouldn't be so bad, but look at some of the major impacts previous rules have had / are having:
Deepstriking was heavily nerfed
Spamming units was nerfed
Fly units were nerfed
Ultimately, the above have arguably helped to balance the game, but at the same time demonstrated how such beta rules can have a major impact
What do you guys think?
I don't think your post makes sense. Presumably you want the game to get better? If so that is going to need some kind of growth mechanism. Beta rules are that current mechanism.
Not sure how a White Dwarf realistically adds to the "book burden" either. The last roughly 500 games I played against people bringing a FW unit (including at large tournaments), I don't think a single person actually had a FW index book for rules reference along for the game. It was all just Battlescribe or maybe a fishy print-out, if you're lucky.
You don't have rules with you, you won't play vs me. No battlescribe is not enough. Too much errors there and top of that it's not like they are closed where only select few can alter them. If you disagree have fun playing with my unit that shoots heavy 20 S10 -4 D6 shots. Honest! Look at this battlescribe print!
The misinformation and baseless hyperbole of this comment is an affront to decency. You should be ashamed of yourself for spreading lies.
Wish they called them "play test rules", i.e. make it explicit in the name these are for testing, with advice to say include one such rule and see what difference it makes.
Would be nice if they also published a play test report form for feedback.
if maybe 0.1% of players used it then it still is worth while and making it explicit these are for testing only and expected to have balance issues avoids problems whereby everyone wants them included.
how times change, remember the curious little fantasy game GW used to have? where if it wasn't mission #1 it didn't exist? remember the 4th & 5th edition expansions for 40k that may as well not have been printed?
Yeah, I do wish that it was clear these were meant for testing, not "assume this will become official so start using it every game" which is what happens. Although a major part of that is ITC seems to immediately jump onto making these rules official so with their influence most games tend to use it
Not sure how a White Dwarf realistically adds to the "book burden" either. The last roughly 500 games I played against people bringing a FW unit (including at large tournaments), I don't think a single person actually had a FW index book for rules reference along for the game. It was all just Battlescribe or maybe a fishy print-out, if you're lucky.
You don't have rules with you, you won't play vs me. No battlescribe is not enough. Too much errors there and top of that it's not like they are closed where only select few can alter them. If you disagree have fun playing with my unit that shoots heavy 20 S10 -4 D6 shots. Honest! Look at this battlescribe print!
You must be fun at parties.
Not believing people freely? Look it's real simple. IF you want to play with game you are supposed to have the rules. Show them.
Do you play without codex? Forgeworld unit or GW unit is irrelevant. You need to have rules for them. Battlescribe is NOT replacement. a) it has tons of issues even I have spotted and I don't even go through it carefully. If I have already noticed casually lots how many others are there? b) it's...easy...to...cheat...with...battle scribe. It's not hard to edit those. I can do that in a heartbeat and I have only done minor things with it. I can create any stats I want for unit there. So if you accept battlescribe as valid source for rules from your opponent you basically accept ANYTHING HE WANTS.
Battlescribe has full of errors and is easy to cheat with. It's not replacement for book. Especially if you are just cheapskate who can't be bothered to buy rules. Don't get the model. If you get model but not rules it's clear you are just WAAC'ing there for power. And quite possibly even trying to cheat.
Not sure how a White Dwarf realistically adds to the "book burden" either. The last roughly 500 games I played against people bringing a FW unit (including at large tournaments), I don't think a single person actually had a FW index book for rules reference along for the game. It was all just Battlescribe or maybe a fishy print-out, if you're lucky.
You don't have rules with you, you won't play vs me. No battlescribe is not enough. Too much errors there and top of that it's not like they are closed where only select few can alter them. If you disagree have fun playing with my unit that shoots heavy 20 S10 -4 D6 shots. Honest! Look at this battlescribe print!
The misinformation and baseless hyperbole of this comment is an affront to decency. You should be ashamed of yourself for spreading lies.
What lies? That there are errors? I have seen them myself. That you can edit files as you wish? In case you haven't noticed it BATTLESCRIBE PROVIDES YOU EDITOR TO EDIT THE FILES.
You don't need to do any fancy things. You just need to use VERY SIMPLE graphical interface tool and you can DO WHATEVER YOU WANT to the files.
Hell why even settle to that. Assault 40 shots, 0 pts, D12 reroll to hit and wound. No problem. Whatever you want it's dirt easy to do. Even kid can do that no problemo. Seriously look outside from your marble tower if you haven't noticed that tool.
Wayniac wrote: Yeah, I do wish that it was clear these were meant for testing, not "assume this will become official so start using it every game" which is what happens. Although a major part of that is ITC seems to immediately jump onto making these rules official so with their influence most games tend to use it
Because the playtesters are tightly coupled with the guys running the ITC. They help GW test. So, they implement the beta rules and give a lot of feedback.
Without the ITC GW would have basically no way to get feedback short of having some programs crawl people's email response spam. Which isn't as constructive.
Marmatag wrote: The idea of beta testing rules with the community is a good thing.
The idea that marines are essentially a few extra bolter shots away from being fine isn't.
Baby steps. Better a series of modest corrections rather than a sudden swing that breaks balance everywhere else.
The problem with Marines is that they are the "squeezed middle". Too expensive to spam in hordes but not effective enough to compete with truly elite armies.
Wayniac wrote: Yeah, I do wish that it was clear these were meant for testing, not "assume this will become official so start using it every game" which is what happens. Although a major part of that is ITC seems to immediately jump onto making these rules official so with their influence most games tend to use it
I don't think the ITC has anything to do with it in all honesty.
My group don't give a flying crap about what ITC are doing, but we automatically take up any beta rule immediately. And it's not because it's not clear it's a test rule. It's the new shiny, so everyone wants to do it.
Remember, when GW are play testing, they're doing so with a finite group over a finite period of time.
As soon as a rulebook or codex hits the market, it's seeing far more hours of play. That quickly throws up oddities and confisions. FAQs and Erratas can help here and there, but a Beta rule is, on occasion, warranted.
And that Beta rule is again expose to the widest possible set of playtesters - Us Nerds. Remember, they're actively looking for feedback. Is the rule just right? Does it need a tweak? Is it perhaps just way out, either not fixing the problem, missing the problem altogether, or swinging the pendulum too far in the opposite direction?
They're an important part of a healthy dialogue between players and writers.
I'm not opposed to community playtesting, my issue comes from the fact that GW gives themselves X amount of time with X amount of people to play X amount of match ups to test balance issues and what not. How fast did 6th to 7th 40K happen? There couldn't have been ANY meaningful playtesting done, really. 8th was almost as bad, and it was essentially a new system.
You look at each edition as the collation of the playtesting of the previous edition, and you have to wonder why it took so long to get from 3rd Ed to 4th, then to 5th. Thought went into it. Plug and play beta testing isn't the answer in the wild as you will immediately get 3 drastically different feedbacks: WAAC, CAAC, and all the normal gamers. How do you even translate that?
Beta rules and community playtesting are a good thing. GW's execution could use work, some serious condensing of sources, but these are way better efforts than we have seen in the past from GW.
tneva82 wrote: You don't have rules with you, you won't play vs me. No battlescribe is not enough.
You must be fun at parties.
Not believing people freely? Look it's real simple. IF you want to play with game you are supposed to have the rules. Show them.
What a shame you play people you think are trying to cheat. Perhaps I'm fortunate, but my friends and those I play at my local gaming group don't try to cheat. I agree that everyone should have a codex for their army (BattleScribe doesn't have all the rules you need) though. I use BattleScribe and have my codex as a reference if I need it (and since I bought datacards the codex usually remains shut). Nobody I've played has ever had a problem with that.
tneva82 wrote: In case you haven't noticed it BATTLESCRIBE PROVIDES YOU EDITOR TO EDIT THE FILES.
I can use a pencil and write in whatever numbers I want also. Unless you're actually going to take the time at the beginning of the match to thoroughly check each other's points, this is simply a trust issue with your opponent.
That being said, you should always have your Codex on hand, although chances are, even if you don't have your codex, I do.
Tbh I know the game well enough that I know the rules outside of some really obscure Forgeworld Unit (which is presumably not very good, otherwise it would get used more).
I have occasionally pulled the "can we check the codex" card when I know someone is talking rubbish - but that's usually because they are not that into the hobby rather than deliberately trying to the cheat. (The old, "I think this unit has this special rule - sure, back in 5th edition" problem).
Vaktathi wrote: Beta rules and community playtesting are a good thing. GW's execution could use work, some serious condensing of sources, but these are way better efforts than we have seen in the past from GW.
Ok, so players give GW feed back that GK cost too much and they units are inefficient unless they are draigo or NDK GMs, that prior general nerfs hit them a bit too strong comparing to other armies . Then GW does what? They drop points on draigo and NDK GM in CA. So either they don't get feedback, they don't read it or they don't care about feedback and it is just a PR thing. I mean could have anyone imagined that the CA changes to GK is going to be GM NDK getting cheaper, but the normal NDK staying at same price?
Vaktathi wrote: Beta rules and community playtesting are a good thing. GW's execution could use work, some serious condensing of sources, but these are way better efforts than we have seen in the past from GW.
Ok, so players give GW feed back that GK cost too much and they units are inefficient unless they are draigo or NDK GMs, that prior general nerfs hit them a bit too strong comparing to other armies . Then GW does what? They drop points on draigo and NDK GM in CA. So either they don't get feedback, they don't read it or they don't care about feedback and it is just a PR thing. I mean could have anyone imagined that the CA changes to GK is going to be GM NDK getting cheaper, but the normal NDK staying at same price?
I strongly suspect the beta bolter rules may well have had something to do with the likes of GK and regular Tacs not getting a drop in CA. Whether that was the correct decision or not is up for debate, but it provides a possible reason for the lack of points changes to things that were obviously overcosted.
Beta rules are probably the single best addition to 8th... Rules that get thosands/10s of thousands of reps (far more then playtesting ever could) before final implementation
I mean we could go back to the gold old days where when you got a busted rule or unit you could just wait a decade and hope it gets sorted out
Another issue I have with the way GW does beta rules is their beta rules are the result of data, which is good, but their data is often months old by the time they get around to it.
What they really should do is something like Privateer Press' CID (Community Integrated Development) where they frequently look at things and do adjustments, then put forth those adjustments as a public beta test with a way to get feedback, and then take that feedback and decide what to adjust.
Cybtroll wrote: Sooner or later, they'll finally release an official subscription format for rules. In the meantime, my money will go to what's worth: models rather than rules.
Wayniac wrote: Another issue I have with the way GW does beta rules is their beta rules are the result of data, which is good, but their data is often months old by the time they get around to it.
What they really should do is something like Privateer Press' CID (Community Integrated Development) where they frequently look at things and do adjustments, then put forth those adjustments as a public beta test with a way to get feedback, and then take that feedback and decide what to adjust.
PP's CID has a lot of restrictions to it though, one of the big ones being the developers have stated they'll flat-out ignore people that reply or post based on theory or maths. Which is a good thing, and one of the reasons it works is because for the longest time said developers were directly involved and talking with the community.
GW are just starting to really do that over the last couple of years. As much as people want them to make near-instant correction to the game-state (I'd put money on people demanding changes based on LVO next weekend) they're still essentially an iceberg that takes time to shift it's course.
I don't really "like" the beta rules, but I think it's better than either alternative. (Not giving updates to rules at all, or publishing imbalanced rules updates without chance of being changed.)
The Beta Rules for psychic powers were a huge nerf to Grey Knights, an army that was already struggling. Because they didn't just make it official, they were able to correct that problem more easily.
The ideal would, of course, be that they just publish good rules from the start, but fat chance of that happening...
I strongly suspect the beta bolter rules may well have had something to do with the likes of GK and regular Tacs not getting a drop in CA. Whether that was the correct decision or not is up for debate, but it provides a possible reason for the lack of points changes to things that were obviously overcosted.
Could be, but at least in case of GK it doesn't change much. If a strike costs 20pts and a storm shield DW vet with a SB costs 20pts, and gets to run termintors to tank small weapon fire and gets very good ammo for free, then to balance this GK should either be some sort of gods in melee or have ultra smite. Right now the very fact that DW vets exists makes GK in power armor a non existent army choice. If one adds to this the fact that GK termis stayed with a higher cost then loyalist ones, the whole GK fix falls apart, as there just isn't enough models to make a valid list with GK.
I mean we could go back to the gold old days where when you got a busted rule or unit you could just wait a decade and hope it gets sorted out
But how is this different from now? The last good GK codex was when in 5th ed? So GK are waiting for a good book to play with their models 5-6 years. I doubt GW is going to print a revamped codex next year. So people will probably have to wait for 9th ed, and hope the 9th ed codex won't be based on the 8th ed codex.
Played a game last night against my buddy's Black Templars with my Salamanders. It was both of ours first game with the betarule and we both loved it. Bikes kick ass now, crusaders put out the hurt, Inceptors & aggressors are even better now.
The issue of which rule is where located in many diff sources would make for an annoying amount of literature.
As long as the betarule is readily available and they actually take the feedback from the community seriously, we might be in a better place.
Mmmpi wrote: I'd prefer that beta rules be free. Still put them in WD, not everyone has internet, or printer access, but it should primarily be an online resource.
Which is exactly what they have done with every beta rule.
Vaktathi wrote: Beta rules and community playtesting are a good thing. GW's execution could use work, some serious condensing of sources, but these are way better efforts than we have seen in the past from GW.
Ok, so players give GW feed back that GK cost too much and they units are inefficient unless they are draigo or NDK GMs, that prior general nerfs hit them a bit too strong comparing to other armies . Then GW does what? They drop points on draigo and NDK GM in CA. So either they don't get feedback, they don't read it or they don't care about feedback and it is just a PR thing. I mean could have anyone imagined that the CA changes to GK is going to be GM NDK getting cheaper, but the normal NDK staying at same price?
A Codex is not a beta rule, so GW are unlikely to be looking for player feedback around it and its deficiencies.
Bolter Disciplie is a beta rule, so providing feedback based on play experiences using it is useful.
Also, not every thread on 40k General needs a post ranting about how GK are in a bad place, and how GW are awful for not fixing it right this second - everyone knows GK need work, but no-one knows how we go about fixing them (though I'd start by decoupling the FW and SB from the base cost of GK troops, myself - that seems like a really bad design choice).
TheWaspinator wrote: The problem with the beta rule concept is that everyone just treats them as final anyway.
As long as they are not officially revoked, that's probably the intention, though.
I agree with the notion, however, that GW needs a specific section/app with these rules available at all times and possibly updated and commented on by the design team in reasonable intervals.
TheWaspinator wrote: The problem with the beta rule concept is that everyone just treats them as final anyway.
There's a chance they might change based on feedback but I don't see that as a reason not to use them. They're generally introduced to fix an exiting problem anyway. What's your point?
A Codex is not a beta rule, so GW are unlikely to be looking for player feedback around it and its deficiencies.
Bolter Disciplie is a beta rule, so providing feedback based on play experiences using it is useful.
Also, not every thread on 40k General needs a post ranting about how GK are in a bad place, and how GW are awful for not fixing it right this second - everyone knows GK need work, but no-one knows how we go about fixing them (though I'd start by decoupling the FW and SB from the base cost of GK troops, myself - that seems like a really bad design choice).
But GK are the only army I have, and they cant be used as other armies like other marines. I care for other armies only in the aspect of how unfun they are going to be for me to play against. As for codex not being beta rules, the GK codex is the index with stratagams and relics added, and GK relics suck. If you compare how much work GW put in to the GK codex and any other book, the GK codex looks very much like something that looks like a beta codex. GK have zero synergies or interactions between their units, other then those GW copied from other marines. So a GK banner guy is going to do the same thing other marine banner guys do. In way the whole GK codex FAQ or errata look like something they do not to help GK be better, but something they do because they are doing it to other marines too.
TheWaspinator wrote: The problem with the beta rule concept is that everyone just treats them as final anyway.
There's a chance they might change based on feedback but I don't see that as a reason not to use them. They're generally introduced to fix an exiting problem anyway. What's your point?
I don't know what his point is, but to me the problem with beta tests is that in large they are no tests. Companies make you buy stuff, saying the game is in alfa or beta test, people point out what is wrong or what doesn't work. The company says they are "looking in to it". And then you get fallout 76, other games stay in an eternal beta test state. W40k feels like that. People give feed back, and GW does their own thing anyway. They are more interested in giving rules and models to new factions, then things they put out, but is broken at the moment. Why they do it, I have no idea. Technically they should want all of their armies to be good. good armies sell well, and are fun to play. Why they go for a system where some groups of people are constantly pissed off, because their armies don't work.
I like beta rules. I like that 8th is a living edition. My friends also likes Beta Rules or better said, they liked it before the Bolter Discipline. Last match, the day before I received a wathsaap where my friend sayd to me that the list should be without Beta Rules this time. Obviously if we always played with Beta, this time, only because my SM get a little boost he wants to play without Bets, but obviously I did my list with Beta.
We have the Beta for good and for bad things. I like it. I prefer GW trying to balance the armys instead of saying years with a unbalanced game.
Given the amount of threads on Dakka about SM being sub-par since 8th launched I really don't understand the animosity towards the Bolter Discipline beta rule.
Probably because the past Beta Rules where general rules. "Everyone gets this limitation". It might not have applied to your specific play style (or army because you had no Psychers), but general rules feel "fair".
The "Better Bolter" Rule only applies to Astartes, which means you feel like GW is making them better and you worst if you aren't playing Astartes. That feels "unfair", even if you know that Astartes are bad for their points.
Brother Castor wrote: Given the amount of threads on Dakka about SM being sub-par since 8th launched I really don't understand the animosity towards the Bolter Discipline beta rule.
Oh, that's simple. GW didn't adopt those posters ideas/those posters didn't think of the bolter rule. Thus the hate. It's really as simple as that.
They are mostly untested and could be really overpowered vs existing model cost (that Bolter one for example is a massive boost)
The bolter boost was "Massive"? What?
Its not massive but its definately a good boost - probably a needed one but also probbaly not affecting the units that needed it a much (Tac Marines) as other units - Bikes for instance.
Be interesting to see how it works on the table and its nowhere near the OP stuff some people insist Marines need.
The "Better Bolter" Rule only applies to Astartes, which means you feel like GW is making them better and you worst if you aren't playing Astartes. That feels "unfair", even if you know that Astartes are bad for their points
Brother Castor wrote: Given the amount of threads on Dakka about SM being sub-par since 8th launched I really don't understand the animosity towards the Bolter Discipline beta rule.
Oh, that's simple. GW didn't adopt those posters ideas/those posters didn't think of the bolter rule. Thus the hate. It's really as simple as that.
Unfortunately this is all too true. "8th is terrible", "worst edition ever", "harder for me to cheat", etc... But when GW actually try to do something to improve an army/faction/game, it is all "not enough" or "too much" but dont actually offer any rational solutions or viable alternatives.
Is 8th perfect? No. Will it get better? Maybe. Will the same people complain no matter what? Hopefully not, but realistically, yes.
Just make sure you use the rules feedback email so they actually know you care enough about the game to not just complain on the internet.
Bring on the betarules GW. Long live the living edition!
Ginjitzu wrote: As for whether or not beta testing is as valuable as focus testing, well from my experience with software development, I can tell you it's invaluable. Experienced testers find the bugs they expect to find, but only customers can find the really nasty gak.
Customers always do things you can never predict or expect.
Ginjitzu wrote: As for whether or not beta testing is as valuable as focus testing, well from my experience with software development, I can tell you it's invaluable. Experienced testers find the bugs they expect to find, but only customers can find the really nasty gak.
Customers always do things you can never predict or expect.
Yeah, ok, but what happens after the bug gets found? Most of the time the beta is a ready game or program, and people have been relocated to do other stuff, and the whole thing goes live with all the bugs that were reported durning the beta. Now I don't know how testing for 8th ed looked like, but I hope that someone did nudge someone at the design team that maybe, just maybe cheaper dark reapers shoting twice may not be the most fun thing to play against. And stuff like that.
But when GW actually try to do something to improve an army/faction/game, it is all "not enough" or "too much" but dont actually offer any rational solutions or viable alternatives.
Ok, do you think the bolter change and 2 HQ being cheaper made GK not the worse army in 8th ed ? I mean maybe they are, and people just don't know how to make them work. Few people play them, so the testing of lists is slow, and knowing my luck there is probably no one who mains GK in the design studio.
Ginjitzu wrote: As for whether or not beta testing is as valuable as focus testing, well from my experience with software development, I can tell you it's invaluable. Experienced testers find the bugs they expect to find, but only customers can find the really nasty gak.
Customers always do things you can never predict or expect.
Quite, the console release of Kerbal Space Programme for an example, apparently "extensively tested", though this did not apparently involve actually playing the game whereby the actual players found a whole slew of problems that are unavoidable when you actually play the game.
e.g. buttons that don't do anything, apparently the code behind them works just fine so the automated testing worked, pity the button was never connected to it but what ho
Karol wrote: Yeah, ok, but what happens after the bug gets found?
Ideally? It gets fixed before the full release. Realistically? It gets fixed after the release by a patch. But GW isn't writing software, so it's likely they'll do the former.
Karol wrote: Yeah, ok, but what happens after the bug gets found? Most of the time the beta is a ready game or program, and people have been relocated to do other stuff, and the whole thing goes live with all the bugs that were reported durning the beta
If they weren't going to leave anyone on the project to fix the bugs they wouldn't release a beta... unless they were doing it for some other reason than bug testing.
Things will get grouped in into must fix now (game breakers), should fix later (significant issues), might fix if time (minor issues), and 'would be nice if we had the time' (probably won't fix)
Karol wrote: Yeah, ok, but what happens after the bug gets found? Most of the time the beta is a ready game or program, and people have been relocated to do other stuff, and the whole thing goes live with all the bugs that were reported durning the beta
If they weren't going to leave anyone on the project to fix the bugs they wouldn't release a beta... unless they were doing it for some other reason than bug testing.
Things will get grouped in into must fix now (game breakers), should fix later (significant issues), might fix if time (minor issues), and 'would be nice if we had the time' (probably won't fix)
And then, if the software world example is followed, fix none of them and ship it anyway with the intention, maybe, to fix ones the customers moan about the most later, if sales justify it
Melissia wrote: However, I think GW has done well enough this edition to deserve the benefit of the doubt here.
They are at least trying, with luck they will get better, they just need to learn how their utterings are generally taken and when they mean something to be for experimental testing stick "open play only" all over it
Karol wrote: Yeah, ok, but what happens after the bug gets found? Most of the time the beta is a ready game or program, and people have been relocated to do other stuff, and the whole thing goes live with all the bugs that were reported durning the beta
If they weren't going to leave anyone on the project to fix the bugs they wouldn't release a beta... unless they were doing it for some other reason than bug testing.
Things will get grouped in into must fix now (game breakers), should fix later (significant issues), might fix if time (minor issues), and 'would be nice if we had the time' (probably won't fix)
Have you seen fallout 76 or the last battlefield? w40k is the same. Whole chunks of rules removed from codex and rule book, to sell as DLC or seson passes. Patchs that don't fix the really broken stuff, but deal with cosmetics or fix stuff that did not need fixing. To me it looks as if GW stops thinking about an army book as soon as they put it out. There is zero communication about what they are planning to do, or what they plan to fix. Now if 8th is great, as other people say, I have no idea how bad other editions had to be.
Ideally? It gets fixed before the full release. Realistically? It gets fixed after the release by a patch. But GW isn't writing software, so it's likely they'll do the former.
Well GK came out in 2017, since then there were 2 CA and god knows how many FAQ. They didn't fix a thing, in fact a lot of the rule book FAQ made GK worse. If all the changes they make are ment to fix GK, then they are doing some 3ed chess tier of design implementation. To me it looks more like they just don't care about some factions. Some faction seem to have rules writen by people that at least knew how they wanted the army to work, and even if the army doesn't come out as world breaking vide Space Wolfs, then at least the book isn't totaly unfun to play.
Karol wrote: Have you seen fallout 76 or the last battlefield?
Yes. Are you going to try to assert that Games Workshop is that incompetent? Because far as I can tell, the transition from previous edition to this one was greeted with a great deal of applause from even cynical GW-haters at the time, and it's still regarded as one of their best editions balance-wise. I was there, I remember it quite clearly, it was rather exciting to see GW improve that much.
I don't know how GK looked in prior edtion, other then from stories, and you can never trust those. And if you are asking me if I think that GW is incompetent, I don't know. I don't know why they made GK bad and aren't fixing them. I generally struggle to understand people intention in the first place.
If what GK are now is considered good, then I do feel sorry for those people that played in 7th edition. I also now think I know why they sold me the army.
Karol wrote: I don't know how GK looked in prior edtion
Generally, broken. Either superpowerful or weak and niche. They've gone back and forth. GK are a hard army to balance due to their super low model count.
Wayniac wrote: Another issue I have with the way GW does beta rules is their beta rules are the result of data, which is good, but their data is often months old by the time they get around to it.
What they really should do is something like Privateer Press' CID (Community Integrated Development) where they frequently look at things and do adjustments, then put forth those adjustments as a public beta test with a way to get feedback, and then take that feedback and decide what to adjust.
CID has its own problems though and Warmahordes players are accusing it of getting power-creepy. It makes sense as the only people who will playtest the CID are people invested in the faction and they'll have a bias towards their own faction. Can you imagine if GW actually let Chaos Marine players influence their rules? OP would be an understatement.
Wayniac wrote: Another issue I have with the way GW does beta rules is their beta rules are the result of data, which is good, but their data is often months old by the time they get around to it.
What they really should do is something like Privateer Press' CID (Community Integrated Development) where they frequently look at things and do adjustments, then put forth those adjustments as a public beta test with a way to get feedback, and then take that feedback and decide what to adjust.
CID has its own problems though and Warmahordes players are accusing it of getting power-creepy. It makes sense as the only people who will playtest the CID are people invested in the faction and they'll have a bias towards their own faction. Can you imagine if GW actually let Chaos Marine players influence their rules? OP would be an understatement.
That's happened before - i give you the 3.5 Chaos Codex...
Karol wrote: Have you seen fallout 76 or the last battlefield? w40k is the same. Whole chunks of rules removed from codex and rule book, to sell as DLC or seson passes. / There is zero communication about what they are planning to do, or what they plan to fix.
Yes, I play a sisters army. It can best be described as 'whole chunks of rules removed' and 'zero communication'.
But at this point i'm glad they are beta rules. Ask me again next year I guess, not if the book is good or bad but if they fixed the flagrant issues that would indicate that they actually read the feedback rather than just double-dipping on codex sales.
Melissia wrote: However, I think GW has done well enough this edition to deserve the benefit of the doubt here.
They are at least trying, with luck they will get better, they just need to learn how their utterings are generally taken and when they mean something to be for experimental testing stick "open play only" all over it
That doesn't work, because then the people that need to test it block it, because they don't like it.
The fact that is becomes a defacto rule is *good*, because it provides more feedback.
Beta Rules and the more frequent FAQS/rules updates are good, however I think GW hasn’t fully figured out how to make them user-friendly. In my mind they should have a single download that encompasses all current Beta rules, and lump the “main rules” FAQS into a single document.
There's not much point to calling any rule in 40k a "beta" rule because pretty much all the rules are beta and subject to change at any time, as evidenced by how much this game changes over time.
The "Better Bolter" Rule only applies to Astartes, which means you feel like GW is making them better and you worst if you aren't playing Astartes. That feels "unfair", even if you know that Astartes are bad for their points.
Most of the animosity I've seen relates to Sisters, but they have Blessed Bolts so it not like they can't have supercharged bolters themselves.
Beta rules have been ... underwhelming.
Since around 5th edition the sisters have seen a lot of their unique stuff handed off to marines and as a faction they are running out of defining strengths. The new bolter rule just shortened their odds in one of the few areas they are still clinging to.
I think lack of incremental changes or feedback from GW during this beta period has just been fuelling a bit of paranoia about them.
Paranoia is by definition unreasonable fear. GW has had a really good record with the actual Beta process so far:
Battle Brothers: After Beta, they added some detachment options for the units that lack a Faction HQ and would therefore be unable to be fielded outside of Auxiliary Support Detachment
Psychic Focus: After Beta, changed Smite nerf from -1 to Cast to +1 to Warp Charge and exempted Grey Knights and Thousand Sons from the rule.
Targeting Characters: After Beta, cleaned up wording to clarify it less than 10 wounds on profile along with the intended changes.
Deep Strike Issues: After first Beta, they proposed a second Beta rules because they (or we) didn't like how the first proposal worked.
So really, there is no actual reason to fear GW's Beta process in 8th Edition to date. Might change in the future, but for we they have been solid.
Wayniac wrote: Another issue I have with the way GW does beta rules is their beta rules are the result of data, which is good, but their data is often months old by the time they get around to it.
What they really should do is something like Privateer Press' CID (Community Integrated Development) where they frequently look at things and do adjustments, then put forth those adjustments as a public beta test with a way to get feedback, and then take that feedback and decide what to adjust.
CID has its own problems though and Warmahordes players are accusing it of getting power-creepy. It makes sense as the only people who will playtest the CID are people invested in the faction and they'll have a bias towards their own faction. Can you imagine if GW actually let Chaos Marine players influence their rules? OP would be an understatement.
That's happened before - i give you the 3.5 Chaos Codex...
And it wasn't a good thing. At all. If it wasn't for Alessio Cavatore and Andy Chambers, I'd say that Chaos 3.5 is proof positive that the person writing an army book should NEVER be a person who plays that army religiously.
Wayniac wrote: Another issue I have with the way GW does beta rules is their beta rules are the result of data, which is good, but their data is often months old by the time they get around to it.
What they really should do is something like Privateer Press' CID (Community Integrated Development) where they frequently look at things and do adjustments, then put forth those adjustments as a public beta test with a way to get feedback, and then take that feedback and decide what to adjust.
CID has its own problems though and Warmahordes players are accusing it of getting power-creepy. It makes sense as the only people who will playtest the CID are people invested in the faction and they'll have a bias towards their own faction. Can you imagine if GW actually let Chaos Marine players influence their rules? OP would be an understatement.
That's happened before - i give you the 3.5 Chaos Codex...
And it wasn't a good thing. At all. If it wasn't for Alessio Cavatore and Andy Chambers, I'd say that Chaos 3.5 is proof positive that the person writing an army book should NEVER be a person who plays that army religiously.
Certainly was the best time for Chaos when it came to customization, and actual fun. And then we got the awful gav dex and that's been it for Chaos being actual Chaos rather then Spikey Marines for a long while.
GW used to produce a Magazine: Citadel Journal. It was all about GW designer, GW team member or Fan created rules and characters. It ran for over 50 issues/10 years.
It was Awesome. Not everything was perfect but it was Beta.
The game has always had that element. If you want to ban it from competitive play....sure go for it...but let the gamers have access to new fun twists and rules, new missions and every conversion and crazy stuff that we can imagine.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Certainly was the best time for Chaos when it came to customization, and actual fun. And then we got the awful gav dex and that's been it for Chaos being actual Chaos rather then Spikey Marines for a long while.
It certainly wasn't fun to be on the receiving end of it. It was so "fun" that handicaps were put in to the main rules SPECIFICALLY to make it less effective.
And it wasn't a good thing. At all. If it wasn't for Alessio Cavatore and Andy Chambers, I'd say that Chaos 3.5 is proof positive that the person writing an army book should NEVER be a person who plays that army religiously.
But why isn't it a good thing?It couldn't be bad because chaos had good rules, was it bad because other armies didn't have fans writing their rules and them ending up kind of a bland? If yes, then the problem never was the chaos rules being good or too good, but other armies rules being horrible. From little I know of eldar were always at least a good army. Did they have an uphill fight vs a chaos 3.5 list?
Karol wrote: If yes, then the problem never was the chaos rules being good or too good, but other armies rules being horrible.
3.5 chaos had a 10pt upgrade that made characters invulnerable to harm. Such a character could fly around the board summoning daemons directly into combat. It was not their strongest build.
But 3e had a lot of weird stuff like that from the Blood Angels turn 1 mass charges to the eldars disruption tables and invulnerable skimmers.
The classic example of writer gone wrong would be the warhammer fantasy daemons of chaos. IIRC Wards position on the army was along the lines of 'daemons should just be better'.
It goes both ways as Cruddace demonstrated with the 5e sisters of battle dex, if you look at his farce of a progress blog and units like the command squad (copy pasted costs from the marine codex and call the job a good un).
And it wasn't a good thing. At all. If it wasn't for Alessio Cavatore and Andy Chambers, I'd say that Chaos 3.5 is proof positive that the person writing an army book should NEVER be a person who plays that army religiously.
But why isn't it a good thing?It couldn't be bad because chaos had good rules, was it bad because other armies didn't have fans writing their rules and them ending up kind of a bland? If yes, then the problem never was the chaos rules being good or too good, but other armies rules being horrible. From little I know of eldar were always at least a good army. Did they have an uphill fight vs a chaos 3.5 list?
Think, for a minute, about a simple power level number graph. Say your Warhammer armies were riding between 4-6 on the power level with Eldar and Blood Angels topping that paradigm. Chaos was around 5, not underpowered, not overpowered. Suddenly 3.5 hits and the power level is around 11. Were the other armies weaker/sucky/whatever, or was the Chaos army overpowered? Look at the wargear they had access to as mentioned before, and that was the tip of the iceberg. Bloodletters were essentially overstatted Incubi that could charge the turn they Deep Struck. NO OTHER ARMY had a unit that could do that, let alone the ridiculous wargear involved. I'd love to do a line by line with how borked that codex was, but there are FAR more defenders of that dex that won't sway at all. Universally all were Chaos players, ironically enough
And it wasn't a good thing. At all. If it wasn't for Alessio Cavatore and Andy Chambers, I'd say that Chaos 3.5 is proof positive that the person writing an army book should NEVER be a person who plays that army religiously.
But why isn't it a good thing?It couldn't be bad because chaos had good rules, was it bad because other armies didn't have fans writing their rules and them ending up kind of a bland? If yes, then the problem never was the chaos rules being good or too good, but other armies rules being horrible. From little I know of eldar were always at least a good army. Did they have an uphill fight vs a chaos 3.5 list?
Think, for a minute, about a simple power level number graph. Say your Warhammer armies were riding between 4-6 on the power level with Eldar and Blood Angels topping that paradigm. Chaos was around 5, not underpowered, not overpowered. Suddenly 3.5 hits and the power level is around 11. Were the other armies weaker/sucky/whatever, or was the Chaos army overpowered? Look at the wargear they had access to as mentioned before, and that was the tip of the iceberg. Bloodletters were essentially overstatted Incubi that could charge the turn they Deep Struck. NO OTHER ARMY had a unit that could do that, let alone the ridiculous wargear involved. I'd love to do a line by line with how borked that codex was, but there are FAR more defenders of that dex that won't sway at all. Universally all were Chaos players, ironically enough
4-6? I'm sorry? Altoic "Half your army is gone" Eldar (Not even counting the others) and "Good luck I've won turn one with Turbocharged rhino assaults" Blood Angels? There's some massive bias in there and it's showing. (Yes I play Chaos. )
First off, you'll NEVER hear me sing accolades for those two books. Ever.
Second, what would have been the responsible thing to do as a games design team: replace the overpowered books with something that is more in line with the game's other codices, or to throw the nuclear option down and overpower Chaos past what those two books were?
Third, even at the height of their cheesiness those books aren't as OP as Chaos 3.5 was. There were at least counters to the cheese, whereas you didn't really have counters for what Chaos got.
Overcharging Rhinos? Deploy back instead of nestling up against the table edge. Large armor ahead of your crunchier troops. Tarpit troops. SEVERAL options. ALL of that hinges on BA getting 1st turn, so basically half the time. Past that: SHOOT THE RHINOS FIRST!!!!!!!
Alaitoc Disruption could only affect so many units a game, and that's assuming they threw down every slot they could with the units that generated disruption. THEN you have an army that really can't excel at much of anything that could be steamrollered by ANY other army if run as a combined arms force.
Tell me how there's a counter for veteran skills? For CSMs with the same abilities as Blood Angels without the overcharged Rhinos? For Tank Hunter? For 10 Bloodletters with 4 attacks each with power weapons at St. 5 (may have to double check this with the book at home since I'm at work and going by memory) that appear magically via Deep Strike with no way to whittle them down first and they have 3+ with a 5+ Invulnerable? And I haven't gotten to the overcharging Khorne Bikers.
That doesn't work, because then the people that need to test it block it, because they don't like it.
The fact that is becomes a defacto rule is *good*, because it provides more feedback.
GW is doing this 100% correctly, in my opinion.
Wait, but wouldn't that mean, that the changes in 8th ed in all the errata and CA done to GK were right, by that logic?
I'm unsure what you're getting at. Do you mean the smite nerf that was repealed on GK? Then, yes, absolutely that's how the system should work. They put a test rule out there, people notified them of the issue, and it was corrected.
I tend to agree with the OP to a point. While I know there haven't been a lot of Beta Rules yet, they aren't treated as Beta Rules by GW. I could be mistaken, and please let me know if I am, but I believe every Beta Rule has become an Actual Rule (for lack of a better phrase).
From what I can tell of Beta Rules (regardless of any other concern) is that they aren't Beta Rules. Seems GW calls them Beta Rules but treats them as "Here are new rules that will become permanent. We're just giving you a heads up that they are coming."
If a Beta Rule is put out there that doesn't get put in place by GW, then I may look at the situation differently. But, that hasn't happened yet. Again, please correct me if I'm wrong.
ServiceGames wrote: I tend to agree with the OP to a point. While I know there haven't been a lot of Beta Rules yet, they aren't treated as Beta Rules by GW. I could be mistaken, and please let me know if I am, but I believe every Beta Rule has become an Actual Rule (for lack of a better phrase).
From what I can tell of Beta Rules (regardless of any other concern) is that they aren't Beta Rules. Seems GW calls them Beta Rules but treats them as "Here are new rules that will become permanent. We're just giving you a heads up that they are coming."
If a Beta Rule is put out there that doesn't get put in place by GW, then I may look at the situation differently. But, that hasn't happened yet. Again, please correct me if I'm wrong.
SG
The Tactical Reserves rule got heavily modified and put into a second round of beta testing, and the Smite Scaling got changed between the beta rule and final rule.
I don't know about you but I find GW's idea of adding beta rules into White Dwarf to be a really terrible idea for several reasons:
It adds to the "bulk" of books to bring
They are mostly untested and could be really overpowered vs existing model cost (that Bolter one for example is a massive boost)
It can cause friction in games
The latter point being for example where you are playing at a club, you want to play your new beta rule because it's a huge advantage and your opponent doesn't. It's a good way to cause friction in a game where the rules should be a constant.
Don't get me wrong, beta missions and scenarios wouldn't be so bad, but look at some of the major impacts previous rules have had / are having:
Deepstriking was heavily nerfed
Spamming units was nerfed
Fly units were nerfed
Ultimately, the above have arguably helped to balance the game, but at the same time demonstrated how such beta rules can have a major impact
What do you guys think?
I think that the "cutting of bulk" for 8th ed is funny.
Karol wrote: I don't know how GK looked in prior edtion
Generally, broken. Either superpowerful or weak and niche. They've gone back and forth. GK are a hard army to balance due to their super low model count.
I like how this (wrong) myth is still alive a decade later. They were merely good in 5th edition (crying about OMG CHEEP POWAH WEPUNZ WHAT OP!!1!one! notwithstanding), in fact they costed more in 5th edition per model than they do in 8th which should tell you all about how "broken" they were. I know I had multiple even fights with GK armies despite playing two of the first books released in 5th, showing the whole 'power creep' myth was nonsense. Then they were made stronger for the first two months of 6th as they were one of two armies with a flyer, this only lasted until real broken codex shown up, namely Tau with their automatic flyer deletion which made that period of dominance end up real quick, along with other armies receiving stronger flyers and AA guns of their own. Then, alas, dumb writer listened to GK criticism and made their book utter crap by employing most of inane "fix" suggestion pretty much demonstrating how gak the whole 5th edition critique was (again), and showing why you shouldn't listen to complainers when trying to balance something.
I feel 8th edition is step up, but alas, it's nowhere near close to the glory days of 5th when someone who actually knew what he was doing (and had idea what a 'hole in army composition' means or could cost situational abilities properly) was in charge. I especially like how early 8th edition plasma spam completely vindicated GK writer not being idiot and adding anti-plasma upgrade to army so as to not auto-lose in 5th edition, if we still had that thing the meta would be much more diverse (plasma no longer being complete no-brainer auto-take) and GK would be far more competitive. Alas...
That doesn't work, because then the people that need to test it block it, because they don't like it.
The fact that is becomes a defacto rule is *good*, because it provides more feedback.
GW is doing this 100% correctly, in my opinion.
Wait, but wouldn't that mean, that the changes in 8th ed in all the errata and CA done to GK were right, by that logic?
I'm unsure what you're getting at. Do you mean the smite nerf that was repealed on GK? Then, yes, absolutely that's how the system should work. They put a test rule out there, people notified them of the issue, and it was corrected.
but nothing was corrected. the baby smite no where near covers for stuff like lack of stormshields, higher points cost, lack of plasma or working hvy weapons, low CP and no stratagems to speak of. At the same time the normal smite GK characters have does scale like everyone else. It only doesn't hurt GK, because they don't run stuff like librarians etc. GK are like 1ksons, but with fewer and worse DPs, no ahriman, weaker psychic powers and what is more important no tzangors, no cultists and no nurgle DPs to ally in. And GW actually buffed 1ksons with changes instead of nerfing them to the GK level.
BaconCatBug wrote: The Tactical Reserves rule got heavily modified and put into a second round of beta testing, and the Smite Scaling got changed between the beta rule and final rule.
But, the rules still made it in. They may have been slightly changed, but they are still there. It's still a "We may modify the rule slightly, but it's going in regardless of whether the players want i there or not" rather than "this rule just doesn't make sense and people don't like it, so let's leave it out."
Irbis wrote: I feel 8th edition is step up, but alas, it's nowhere near close to the glory days of 5th
The 5e codex is what wrecked them (and the inquisition) in the long term, turning them into over-equipped tactical marines geared up to fight other marines. There is just no easy way to balance 'cheap generic MEQ with high end gear and psychic powers'.
That doesn't work, because then the people that need to test it block it, because they don't like it.
The fact that is becomes a defacto rule is *good*, because it provides more feedback.
GW is doing this 100% correctly, in my opinion.
Wait, but wouldn't that mean, that the changes in 8th ed in all the errata and CA done to GK were right, by that logic?
I'm unsure what you're getting at. Do you mean the smite nerf that was repealed on GK? Then, yes, absolutely that's how the system should work. They put a test rule out there, people notified them of the issue, and it was corrected.
but nothing was corrected. the baby smite no where near covers for stuff like lack of stormshields, higher points cost, lack of plasma or working hvy weapons, low CP and no stratagems to speak of. At the same time the normal smite GK characters have does scale like everyone else. It only doesn't hurt GK, because they don't run stuff like librarians etc. GK are like 1ksons, but with fewer and worse DPs, no ahriman, weaker psychic powers and what is more important no tzangors, no cultists and no nurgle DPs to ally in. And GW actually buffed 1ksons with changes instead of nerfing them to the GK level.
I thought this topic was about beta rules, not GK rules... Please stop.
Beta rules aren't a problem in themselves I don't think. The problem is that everyone seems to unanimously accept them as is, on the first draft, as official rules. Regardless of how powerful/useless it makes certain builds. Regardless how unstable and confusing it makes the game, when they get modified and changed every couple months
Karol wrote: I don't know how GK looked in prior edtion
Generally, broken. Either superpowerful or weak and niche. They've gone back and forth. GK are a hard army to balance due to their super low model count.
I like how this (wrong) myth is still alive a decade later. They were merely good in 5th edition (crying about OMG CHEEP POWAH WEPUNZ WHAT OP!!1!one! notwithstanding), in fact they costed more in 5th edition per model than they do in 8th which should tell you all about how "broken" they were. I know I had multiple even fights with GK armies despite playing two of the first books released in 5th, showing the whole 'power creep' myth was nonsense. Then they were made stronger for the first two months of 6th as they were one of two armies with a flyer, this only lasted until real broken codex shown up, namely Tau with their automatic flyer deletion which made that period of dominance end up real quick, along with other armies receiving stronger flyers and AA guns of their own. Then, alas, dumb writer listened to GK criticism and made their book utter crap by employing most of inane "fix" suggestion pretty much demonstrating how gak the whole 5th edition critique was (again), and showing why you shouldn't listen to complainers when trying to balance something.
I feel 8th edition is step up, but alas, it's nowhere near close to the glory days of 5th when someone who actually knew what he was doing (and had idea what a 'hole in army composition' means or could cost situational abilities properly) was in charge. I especially like how early 8th edition plasma spam completely vindicated GK writer not being idiot and adding anti-plasma upgrade to army so as to not auto-lose in 5th edition, if we still had that thing the meta would be much more diverse (plasma no longer being complete no-brainer auto-take) and GK would be far more competitive. Alas...
Nice try. They were total bs in 5th. I was there. Stop the spin. It's not a myth.
BaconCatBug wrote: The Tactical Reserves rule got heavily modified and put into a second round of beta testing, and the Smite Scaling got changed between the beta rule and final rule.
But, the rules still made it in. They may have been slightly changed, but they are still there. It's still a "We may modify the rule slightly, but it's going in regardless of whether the players want i there or not" rather than "this rule just doesn't make sense and people don't like it, so let's leave it out."
SG
So far, every single Beta Rules has been for Matched Play. So the problem seems to be that you don't like how GW is choosing to balance Matched Play. There's always the option to not play Matched Play.
I just found Citadel Journal 44 in the bottom of my box. It had the update to the 'trial' (read beta) Harlequin list that was in the previous mag.
It had the Harlequin Wraithlord (where did that go???)
It had the Death Jesters
It had Harlequin Mimes (why have these guys not made it in recent editions????)
The reason some players are so adamant about Beta Rules in some editions is that they came with models/cool conversions. So players bought GW stuff, used GW rules and now they want to play with the Beta.
It isn't too hard to figure some of it out. The Bolter Rules seem to make lackluster Marines a tad better, but it seemed inconsequential in my games thus far.
Not sure how a White Dwarf realistically adds to the "book burden" either. The last roughly 500 games I played against people bringing a FW unit (including at large tournaments), I don't think a single person actually had a FW index book for rules reference along for the game. It was all just Battlescribe or maybe a fishy print-out, if you're lucky.
You don't have rules with you, you won't play vs me. No battlescribe is not enough. Too much errors there and top of that it's not like they are closed where only select few can alter them. If you disagree have fun playing with my unit that shoots heavy 20 S10 -4 D6 shots. Honest! Look at this battlescribe print!
I'm glad I never have to play with you.
When did basic, common courtesy go out of style. It's not your time exclusively. Publicly available Beta rules are better tested by 100k people rather than 4 or 5 guys in the studio. Coming to a public game space and expecting me to wait for you to wade through your phone and then scroll through the text is very discourteous. I know it SHOULD be easy but I've never seen anyone at a shop actually prepared to use their smartphone when its needed.
Print it out. If you have a shady printout, I dont care. I'd be much happier than trying to use your phone.
First, how many people want new rules/like the rules.
second, how many of the people who approve approve the rules play space marines (because lets face it, its made ALL space marine armies better)
IS GW is still up to its old tricks..? BUY MORE MARINES here's some cool new rules.
There are more beta rules than bolter drills (or whatever name it has). It's even the first beta rule directly targeted at armies instead of the 40K ruleset.
While I agree that this "codex" should have been free too (and CA's point changes should also be free), I think it's kinda out of the scope of discussion as it isn't "rule set changing" rules (it's more like a beta supplement) and thus forgot about it.
So either they don't get feedback, they don't read it or they don't care about feedback and it is just a PR thing. I mean could have anyone imagined that the 
)
