Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Azreal13 wrote:
But that's ridiculous.

If I buy any item, and find that a feature doesn't work as described, or that I have trouble operating, do you think I'd accept "it's ok,just keep using it, it'll work fine approximately 50% of the time" as an appropriate response from the manufacturer?

As I've said in another thread recently, you don't write rules for reasonable people, you write rules for the little fethers who will invest so much into winning that they'll think nothing of spoiling a reasonable person's fun to do so.

It's also nice to have a rule set where I don't have to have a discussion over 5 difernt rules just to get though a game :0 .

If GW where to die, I would mostly only be sad to be losing a lot of the alternative minis, as they may strugle without the alternative market making them viable as a business.
They put out way better stuff than GW have been, and even the less polished ones can have a lot of charecter to them.
In the end in 10 years GW probably wouldn't be missed outside of small little community's, 20 years killing it off allmost completly I imagine after GW failed.
If there IP is picked up, then that's good. But I honestly don't think it's worth enough, outside of the game industry it hasent got enough to make it a big purchase. (At least nothing proved yet)

 Azreal13 wrote:
But that's ridiculous.

If I buy any item, and find that a feature doesn't work as described, or that I have trouble operating, do you think I'd accept "it's ok,just keep using it, it'll work fine approximately 50% of the time" as an appropriate response from the manufacturer?

As I've said in another thread recently, you don't write rules for reasonable people, you write rules for the little fethers who will invest so much into winning that they'll think nothing of spoiling a reasonable person's fun to do so.

It's not only about dickholes either. For example, back when the SM codex came out, it was very clear to me that vehicles got cover saves from grav weapons, and it was very clear to my mate that they didn't. Six months later the FAQ proved me right, but until then what were we supposed to do? Dice off? Once, or every game? Argue about it? Never play again? Do it my way? Do it his way? No matter what, one of us feels like we're playing the game wrong to his detriment and his opponent's benefit.

Of course, we're both (somewhat) reasonable adults, so we came to an agreement (ruled it my way) on how we'd deal with it after talking to some of the other guys at our club, and my mate had no problems accepting it, and had it gone the other way I'd accept it too, but every time my vehicles wouldn't get a cover save I'm sure I'd feel just a little bit salty.

It's not the end of the world, we both still enjoy 40k, our games are always tons of fun, but these issues are detriments to that fun, and especially so since competent rules writing would remove that detriment altogether.

Tsilber wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
But that's ridiculous.

If I buy any item, and find that a feature doesn't work as described, or that I have trouble operating, do you think I'd accept "it's ok,just keep using it, it'll work fine approximately 50% of the time" as an appropriate response from the manufacturer?

As I've said in another thread recently, you don't write rules for reasonable people, you write rules for the little fethers who will invest so much into winning that they'll think nothing of spoiling a reasonable person's fun to do so.

Are making reference to the item being bought and not operating, to the Necron Codex?

No one knows whats in the Codex... so you are not buying it knowing. "There is this wicked formation, that allows a unit of spiders and X also". You do not know what is in the book, now if photos are leaked of the book and you see that entry, then you saw the wording prior to buying the codex, and you see it says 1 spider, hence you know how the item is going to operate.


Also, the rules I dont think are written to target a specific person. I think they opened the flood gates, by allowing LoW, or dual cads or whatever. And while I self impose restrictions when I play in tourneys, I like the idea of the 40k world in chaos. I like that Orks and Necrons are going to team up to vanquish bugs. I like that Necrons are pissed so they brought some big super heavy to battle.

What I do not like is the named characters abuse, like someone fielding. Draigo, Tigerius and Severin Loth all in the same 1850 list... Like really all these big wigs showed up to this little skirmish? But I know its out there and available to others, I know I will see it so I prepare for and just be solution oriented when it happens. If I lose to it, i simply shake hands and move on understanding its part of the game.

Rules being confusing is not as big a sin as their overall complexity and simultaneous shallowness and that's behind the gross imbalances in the game where some units are over powered and some are near useless.
Oh, there are so many problems to choose from.
And saying "GW will never go out of business" is a little absurd. I'm not saying they will, but never is a big word.
Hmmm....things that people thought would never go under. Roman Empire. TSR. Constantinople. Mel Gibson. Sears catalog. Blockbuster. Titanic.

 MWHistorian wrote:

Tsilber wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
But that's ridiculous.

If I buy any item, and find that a feature doesn't work as described, or that I have trouble operating, do you think I'd accept "it's ok,just keep using it, it'll work fine approximately 50% of the time" as an appropriate response from the manufacturer?

As I've said in another thread recently, you don't write rules for reasonable people, you write rules for the little fethers who will invest so much into winning that they'll think nothing of spoiling a reasonable person's fun to do so.

Are making reference to the item being bought and not operating, to the Necron Codex?

No one knows whats in the Codex... so you are not buying it knowing. "There is this wicked formation, that allows a unit of spiders and X also". You do not know what is in the book, now if photos are leaked of the book and you see that entry, then you saw the wording prior to buying the codex, and you see it says 1 spider, hence you know how the item is going to operate.


Also, the rules I dont think are written to target a specific person. I think they opened the flood gates, by allowing LoW, or dual cads or whatever. And while I self impose restrictions when I play in tourneys, I like the idea of the 40k world in chaos. I like that Orks and Necrons are going to team up to vanquish bugs. I like that Necrons are pissed so they brought some big super heavy to battle.

What I do not like is the named characters abuse, like someone fielding. Draigo, Tigerius and Severin Loth all in the same 1850 list... Like really all these big wigs showed up to this little skirmish? But I know its out there and available to others, I know I will see it so I prepare for and just be solution oriented when it happens. If I lose to it, i simply shake hands and move on understanding its part of the game.

Rules being confusing is not as big a sin as their overall complexity and simultaneous shallowness and that's behind the gross imbalances in the game where some units are over powered and some are near useless.
Oh, there are so many problems to choose from.
And saying "GW will never go out of business" is a little absurd. I'm not saying they will, but never is a big word.
Hmmm....things that people thought would never go under. Roman Empire. TSR. Constantinople. Mel Gibson. Sears catalog. Blockbuster. Titanic.

I see your points. First i dont think the rules are over complex to a point of what people make it, sure some spots are shaky. But in the end its not terrible and most of the lodged complaints on rulings or whatever is nothing more than over picking or grasping for straws. And you are right, some units are great and have great synergy and some units are terrible, but people buy units for fluff, collection, or make a competitive list so I think I am missing how this is a bad thing.
You're right, to claim it is NEVER going to happen is probably absurd and far fetched. I'll move my opinion into the highly unlikely, 5% chance category. Well unless someone like Tiberius, Caligula, or Nero take over then I'm on board with its demise...

As for list and Armies being overpowered or whatever. Tournies are setting restrictions on how to deal, most tourneys have the rules prior to signing up. But even when someone brings a list, that has No Formations, No lords of war,
No named characters, no dataslates, no forgeworld, no knight titans, and is only using one source book, that ends up winning a GT... That persons list is still dissected and said to be overpowered.

And you are right, some units are great and have great synergy and some units are terrible, but people buy units for fluff, collection, or make a competitive list so I think I am missing how this is a bad thing.

Because many people play for the fluff. When they play their favorite unit and see that's its comically bad on the table, they get frustrated and disenchanted.

 MWHistorian wrote:

And you are right, some units are great and have great synergy and some units are terrible, but people buy units for fluff, collection, or make a competitive list so I think I am missing how this is a bad thing.

Because many people play for the fluff. When they play their favorite unit and see that's its comically bad on the table, they get frustrated and disenchanted.

I guess I dont see that all that much. I see people using there most potent units, or anything they read on the internet and when they as a player are terrible, they go ranting off on how GW is doomed, or the rules suck, or whatever.

I myself have a fluff list using units I dont think are all that great. Its those games that are the most fun, testing myself and knowing my list is severely out matched.

I play a lot of tournies in my area and a few GT's each year.
I see about a lot playing list to win, but more than that I see people playing for the love of them using "terrible units/list" and yet have a good time every time I see them..... And then there are the people in column C, as per my sig.

Crimson Heretic wrote:
somebody would buy it, if companys are stupid enough to keep buying chrysler over and over and over again, then GW will be snatched right up.

Agreed, In reality this could happen before they went bankrupt, as banking entities are very shy of holding onto a sinking ship, I look forward to this day. How could anyone frak it up anymore than they have already.

The difference between Chrysler and GW is I don't think GW will get a goverment bail out. Chrysler has been on the government tit for a long time

Apple fox wrote:


If GW where to die, I would mostly only be sad to be losing a lot of the alternative minis, as they may strugle without the alternative market making them viable as a business.

I think it could almost go the other way. There are a million and one people out there wanting to publish rule sets, but without a miniatures line to go with them they often flounder. Talk about a reset...Victoria, Chapterhouse or who have you could just step in with their own rules for their existing model line that no longer has to compete with the GW status quo....and away they go.

This of course assumes that they have at least some line of full kits, not just conversion bits.

Out of curiosity, could a company sue for IP infringement after bankruptcy?

 Chute82 wrote:
The difference between Chrysler and GW is I don't think GW will get a government bail out. Chrysler has been on the government tit for a long time

Twice, at least.



The Auld Grump

 Strombones wrote:


Out of curiosity, could a company sue for IP infringement after bankruptcy?

Whoever owned the IP could, and if they are using it they are likely to be even more aggressive than the original owner.

 Strombones wrote:

Apple fox wrote:


If GW where to die, I would mostly only be sad to be losing a lot of the alternative minis, as they may strugle without the alternative market making them viable as a business.

I think it could almost go the other way. There are a million and one people out there wanting to publish rule sets, but without a miniatures line to go with them they often flounder. Talk about a reset...Victoria, Chapterhouse or who have you could just step in with their own rules for their existing model line that no longer has to compete with the GW status quo....and away they go.

This of course assumes that they have at least some line of full kits, not just conversion bits.

Out of curiosity, could a company sue for IP infringement after bankruptcy?

.

The ones with full units defenatly could, as they could also get more units to fill in the gaps faster.
A few commanders and some vechles could get so,e of them up and running as full army's at Victoria, and I would probably have allready buy them :p.

Otherwise yes, it is still something they can enforce, but it could also mean that any company looking to purchase GW need more convincing that they are infact getting something for there money,
From a IP perspective GW has only a few strong things, with a lot of it rather normal sci fi/fantasy, which is a good thing from our perspective with familiarity and a grasp of concepts. But for a potential buyer they may worry that it isn't enough and consider the price to much and less effort to just make something new,
It's allways tough to predict what the future will hold.

alot of people will still play it for a few years, then it will die

WayneTheGame wrote:

Maybe if they wrote clear rules these arguments wouldn't happen. If that how it's worded it's pretty clear but we're talkng about a company that has a track record for writing vague rules that require interpretation of exactly what the hell they actually intend it to be. There's no way of knowing if they actually intended 1 Spyder or what because they've been so inconsistent in the past.

GW's rule writing is clear as Rocky Mountain Spring Water when compared to the rules like DBA/DBMM written by Phil Barker.

Here is an example of his writing:

If total is half or less than half that of its opponent
Cavalry. Flee from Pikes, Spears or Hoards if in good going, or Artilery in Close Combat. If not Destroyed.
Light Horse. Destroyed by any mounted, Artillery shooting, Bows or Psiloi, or if in bad going. If not Flee.
Psiloi. Destroyed by Knights, Cavalry, Camelry, or Light Horse if in going these count as good or by Bows, Auxiliary or Psiloi. If not,
Flee.
All others. Recoil from Artillery in close combat. If not, Destroyed.

If you look closely atthse,there are about four different interpretations for all of the conditionals "if such and such..."

For instance, is it spears and hoards that need to be in good going go for Cavalry to flee from them? Or is it the Cavalry that need to be in Good Going? Or is it just the Hoards about which we need to ask this question, and the Cavalry always flees from Spears?

You can see in the other "outcomes" similarly confusing wording.

And this is perhaps an example of his clearest writing.

GW at least knows how to use Bullet Points (which the above "table" could be clearly written using bullet points, or an ACTUAL Table).

I won't say they don't have some issues with confusing rules. That seems to be par for the course with any Wargames. But they are among the minor offenders when looking at the broader scope.

MB




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Strombones wrote:

Apple fox wrote:


If GW where to die, I would mostly only be sad to be losing a lot of the alternative minis, as they may strugle without the alternative market making them viable as a business.

I think it could almost go the other way. There are a million and one people out there wanting to publish rule sets, but without a miniatures line to go with them they often flounder. Talk about a reset...Victoria, Chapterhouse or who have you could just step in with their own rules for their existing model line that no longer has to compete with the GW status quo....and away they go.

This of course assumes that they have at least some line of full kits, not just conversion bits.

Out of curiosity, could a company sue for IP infringement after bankruptcy?

I don't think a rules set needs a miniatures line to be successful.

There are several Sci-Fi sets from the 1980's that were very successful for a while, yet were generic.

What I find is more relevant is:

Does the company support their rules by regular convention or game store events?

Without support, any game will die.

Having a dedicated miniatures line is just one form of dedicated support... And one of they better means of support (look at how much more successful Flames of War has been than other WWII rules sets, due to simply producing a dedicated miniatures line).

But your point is appropriate in that respect, if we take it to mean that most game rules simply do not support their rules worth a damn. By any means (of which a Miniature line is the best means).

MB

well people played older editions of D&D (3.5) for a very long time. It had no miniatures and no updates to the system. 40k could carry on, but finding people would become more and more difficult. As unlike D&D, is much harder to play with rocks and paper cutouts.

Tsilber wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
But that's ridiculous.

If I buy any item, and find that a feature doesn't work as described, or that I have trouble operating, do you think I'd accept "it's ok,just keep using it, it'll work fine approximately 50% of the time" as an appropriate response from the manufacturer?

As I've said in another thread recently, you don't write rules for reasonable people, you write rules for the little fethers who will invest so much into winning that they'll think nothing of spoiling a reasonable person's fun to do so.

Are making reference to the item being bought and not operating, to the Necron Codex?

No one knows whats in the Codex... so you are not buying it knowing. "There is this wicked formation, that allows a unit of spiders and X also". You do not know what is in the book, now if photos are leaked of the book and you see that entry, then you saw the wording prior to buying the codex, and you see it says 1 spider, hence you know how the item is going to operate.

Now perhaps there are other points that have happened to better validate what you said. I am not disputing that. I am simply stating that the Necron codex formation in question is not one of those points, and the fact that so much is created over it is nonsense and more flubber and garbage GW has to deal with, or more fire thrown on the 'GW is terrible fire'. When it should in fact be none of the above.


Also, the rules I dont think are written to target a specific person. I think they opened the flood gates, by allowing LoW, or dual cads or whatever. And while I self impose restrictions when I play in tourneys, I like the idea of the 40k world in chaos. I like that Orks and Necrons are going to team up to vanquish bugs. I like that Necrons are pissed so they brought some big super heavy to battle.

What I do not like is the named characters abuse, like someone fielding. Draigo, Tigerius and Severin Loth all in the same 1850 list... Like really all these big wigs showed up to this little skirmish? But I know its out there and available to others, I know I will see it so I prepare for and just be solution oriented when it happens. If I lose to it, i simply shake hands and move on understanding its part of the game, I willfully choose to participate in.

Sorry to detonate what is a fairly substantial wall of text that I'm sure took time and thought, but, no, at no time was I referencing the Necron codex, just your line about rolling off if you can't agree.

 gwarsh41 wrote:
well people played older editions of D&D (3.5) for a very long time. It had no miniatures and no updates to the system. 40k could carry on, but finding people would become more and more difficult. As unlike D&D, is much harder to play with rocks and paper cutouts.

I still play 3.5.
I play in small groups and we can agree to play whatever we want because there's not an overall competitive meta out there like there is in wargames. What I'm trying to say is: You don't show up for pick up games at the store for D&D like you do with tabletop miniature games.

 Azreal13 wrote:

Tsilber wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
But that's ridiculous.

If I buy any item, and find that a feature doesn't work as described, or that I have trouble operating, do you think I'd accept "it's ok,just keep using it, it'll work fine approximately 50% of the time" as an appropriate response from the manufacturer?

As I've said in another thread recently, you don't write rules for reasonable people, you write rules for the little fethers who will invest so much into winning that they'll think nothing of spoiling a reasonable person's fun to do so.

Are making reference to the item being bought and not operating, to the Necron Codex?

No one knows whats in the Codex... so you are not buying it knowing. "There is this wicked formation, that allows a unit of spiders and X also". You do not know what is in the book, now if photos are leaked of the book and you see that entry, then you saw the wording prior to buying the codex, and you see it says 1 spider, hence you know how the item is going to operate.

Now perhaps there are other points that have happened to better validate what you said. I am not disputing that. I am simply stating that the Necron codex formation in question is not one of those points, and the fact that so much is created over it is nonsense and more flubber and garbage GW has to deal with, or more fire thrown on the 'GW is terrible fire'. When it should in fact be none of the above.


Also, the rules I dont think are written to target a specific person. I think they opened the flood gates, by allowing LoW, or dual cads or whatever. And while I self impose restrictions when I play in tourneys, I like the idea of the 40k world in chaos. I like that Orks and Necrons are going to team up to vanquish bugs. I like that Necrons are pissed so they brought some big super heavy to battle.

What I do not like is the named characters abuse, like someone fielding. Draigo, Tigerius and Severin Loth all in the same 1850 list... Like really all these big wigs showed up to this little skirmish? But I know its out there and available to others, I know I will see it so I prepare for and just be solution oriented when it happens. If I lose to it, i simply shake hands and move on understanding its part of the game, I willfully choose to participate in.

Sorry to detonate what is a fairly substantial wall of text that I'm sure took time and thought, but, no, at no time was I referencing the Necron codex, just your line about rolling off if you can't agree.

Oh thats what you meant... No harm done.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 gwarsh41 wrote:
well people played older editions of D&D (3.5) for a very long time. It had no miniatures and no updates to the system. 40k could carry on, but finding people would become more and more difficult. As unlike D&D, is much harder to play with rocks and paper cutouts.

I still play 3.5.
I play in small groups and we can agree to play whatever we want because there's not an overall competitive meta out there like there is in wargames. What I'm trying to say is: You don't show up for pick up games at the store for D&D like you do with tabletop miniature games.

I don't go to a store to pick-up games for wargaming. I just play at friends houses. That way, I don't have to deal with TFG's out of the blue.

I'll tell you what would happen. It would be a glorious day for the Warhammer Universe. Because whoever buys the IP cannot possibly feth it up any worse than GW has.

The company that would most likely to buy GW's IPs would be Asmodee/Fantasy Flight Games. They already make lots of Warhammer related games: Deathwatch, Relic, Conquest. And they do a great job with them. In fact I have been saying for years that GW, to save their game, should let Fantasy Flight write the rules. Since GW is constantly reaffirming their stance that their a games company. Thats fine with me. Now stop writing rules and let a better company do it.

Ken52682 wrote:
I'll tell you what would happen. It would be a glorious day for the Warhammer Universe. Because whoever buys the IP cannot possibly feth it up any worse than GW has.

The company that would most likely to buy GW's IPs would be Asmodee/Fantasy Flight Games. They already make lots of Warhammer related games: Deathwatch, Relic, Conquest. And they do a great job with them. In fact I have been saying for years that GW, to save their game, should let Fantasy Flight write the rules. Since GW is constantly reaffirming their stance that their a games company. Thats fine with me. Now stop writing rules and let a better company do it.

That's something I would totally get behind. The rules right now are horrible, all things considered.

BeAfraid wrote:

GW's rule writing is clear as Rocky Mountain Spring Water when compared to the rules like DBA/DBMM written by Phil Barker.

Here is an example of his writing:

If total is half or less than half that of its opponent
Cavalry. Flee from Pikes, Spears or Hoards if in good going, or Artilery in Close Combat. If not Destroyed.
Light Horse. Destroyed by any mounted, Artillery shooting, Bows or Psiloi, or if in bad going. If not Flee.
Psiloi. Destroyed by Knights, Cavalry, Camelry, or Light Horse if in going these count as good or by Bows, Auxiliary or Psiloi. If not,
Flee.
All others. Recoil from Artillery in close combat. If not, Destroyed.

If you look closely atthse,there are about four different interpretations for all of the conditionals "if such and such..."

For instance, is it spears and hoards that need to be in good going go for Cavalry to flee from them? Or is it the Cavalry that need to be in Good Going? Or is it just the Hoards about which we need to ask this question, and the Cavalry always flees from Spears?

You can see in the other "outcomes" similarly confusing wording.

And this is perhaps an example of his clearest writing.

GW at least knows how to use Bullet Points (which the above "table" could be clearly written using bullet points, or an ACTUAL Table).

I won't say they don't have some issues with confusing rules. That seems to be par for the course with any Wargames. But they are among the minor offenders when looking at the broader scope.

MB

Perhaps. But if you consider also that GW:

--Have a much higher budget to spend on editing, proofreading and (in theory) playtesting.

--Have been operating with essentially the same system for the last 16-odd years.

--Have a much broader fanbase and far more opportunities (even if they're not taken) for feedback on busted rules and things that need clarifying.

Then there are far fewer excuses to be made.

 Elemental wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:

GW's rule writing is clear as Rocky Mountain Spring Water when compared to the rules like DBA/DBMM written by Phil Barker.

Here is an example of his writing:

If total is half or less than half that of its opponent
Cavalry. Flee from Pikes, Spears or Hoards if in good going, or Artilery in Close Combat. If not Destroyed.
Light Horse. Destroyed by any mounted, Artillery shooting, Bows or Psiloi, or if in bad going. If not Flee.
Psiloi. Destroyed by Knights, Cavalry, Camelry, or Light Horse if in going these count as good or by Bows, Auxiliary or Psiloi. If not,
Flee.
All others. Recoil from Artillery in close combat. If not, Destroyed.

If you look closely atthse,there are about four different interpretations for all of the conditionals "if such and such..."

For instance, is it spears and hoards that need to be in good going go for Cavalry to flee from them? Or is it the Cavalry that need to be in Good Going? Or is it just the Hoards about which we need to ask this question, and the Cavalry always flees from Spears?

You can see in the other "outcomes" similarly confusing wording.

And this is perhaps an example of his clearest writing.

GW at least knows how to use Bullet Points (which the above "table" could be clearly written using bullet points, or an ACTUAL Table).

I won't say they don't have some issues with confusing rules. That seems to be par for the course with any Wargames. But they are among the minor offenders when looking at the broader scope.

MB

Perhaps. But if you consider also that GW:

--Have a much higher budget to spend on editing, proofreading and (in theory) playtesting.

--Have been operating with essentially the same system for the last 16-odd years.

--Have a much broader fanbase and far more opportunities (even if they're not taken) for feedback on busted rules and things that need clarifying.

Then there are far fewer excuses to be made.

From having participated in the process of play testing the DBX rules, and WHFB, in the 1980's, when GW actually put more effort into play testing. Neither company "spends" anything on play-testing (they don't pay play-testers).

The problem stems from one person in the WRG play testing pipeline, who has been informed untold thousands upon thousands of times (so it is not like he is unaware that people have problems with the rules.

Outside of WHFB, DBA has the largest, most active fan base I have seen in terms of support for the game.

There are some very popular websites that are known to the author, which have rules clarifications.

His response was to condemn these efforts, and to mock those who have pointed out (again, and again, and again) that there are problems with the rules.

As for print budgets.... Given that the rules sell out within days of the first print run being released, and he knew this would happen, due to the scarcity of past issues, and their rather high sales on eBay, it isn't a question of budget, either. The actual "rules" for DBA, for instances are only four to five pages long. DBMM has a slightly larger rule book, but it still pales in comparison to the page counts of any GW product. Adding a few more pages to introduce bullet-points, and diagrams would not break his bank, given the sales of the rules in the past.

And... Given that competitors with smaller budgets have released similar rules that include clarifying bullet-points, and diagrams.... All evidence points to someone in the production pipeline simply being obstinate and obtuse about the editing and language.

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh! And WRG have been producing rules since around 1974.

The same author... Doing the exact same things with the rules, which make them difficult to read.

MB

Just a quick point - the term 'Time Is Money' exists for a reason - just because playtesters are not paid does not mean that taking the time to do a proper playtest does not have a cost - in a later public release, if in no other fashion.

It can become painfully obvious when there is either no playtesting or when the playtesters are not listened to.

GW is not the only offender in this regard - TSR was guilty of it with Unearthed Arcana, WotC was guilty of it with 4e, GDW was guilty of it with Fire, Fusion, & Steel. (An otherwise great book - but they admitted that the rules for plasma weapons were utter tosh, and that playtesters had commented on it long before the book saw print.)

I have playtested a friend's system and ran into the problem first hand - he felt insulted when his system was critiqued. (His mass combat system made WHFB look like a model of clarity.)

GW is guilty of it more often than most, but they are by no means the only company that skimps on playtesting, and I have no idea of how many companies bother with double blind playtesting. (Where the people testing the system have no experience with the system - and run from the book.)

The Auld Grump

 Elemental wrote:


Perhaps. But if you consider also that GW:

--Have a much higher budget to spend on editing, proofreading and (in theory) playtesting.

--Have been operating with essentially the same system for the last 16-odd years.

--Have a much broader fanbase and far more opportunities (even if they're not taken) for feedback on busted rules and things that need clarifying.

Then there are far fewer excuses to be made.

1. There is NO PROOFREADING. I've yet to see a single codex from 6th edition that did not have simple misspelling mistakes in words common enough that they should be recognized by any spellcheck.

2. Yeah, and as almost all aging systems do, it became more and more bloated with every addition they made. Playing a round of 40k with various unit types, terrain and buildings is as tedious as requesting a specific type of toilet paper from the administratum.

3. Erratas are nice and all, but it would generally be better if they would not have to make them several pages long for each codex in the first place.

I remember FF&S from GDW.

I was an Avid Striker Player, and working with Fire Fusion & Steel to try to produce vehicles for Striker II was pretty much a waste of time.

Striker II itself was incredibly broken, as well.

GDW did a bad job of dealing with weapon penetration of Armor.

They had either a "Penetration must be higher than Armor" or they had an ineffective penetration role that was all but useless.

Their concepts were generally awesome, but their play testing tended to need more work.

MB

BeAfraid wrote:
I remember FF&S from GDW.

I was an Avid Striker Player, and working with Fire Fusion & Steel to try to produce vehicles for Striker II was pretty much a waste of time.

Striker II itself was incredibly broken, as well.

GDW did a bad job of dealing with weapon penetration of Armor.

They had either a "Penetration must be higher than Armor" or they had an ineffective penetration role that was all but useless.

Their concepts were generally awesome, but their play testing tended to need more work.

MB

By the time of FF&S GDW was in a lot of financial pain.

They still should have taken the time to fix the problems that had been found - but I think that they felt it could be covered in errata. (They were wrong.)

I used FF&S with the Traveller rules - and for an RPG they worked fine - but, yeah... much as I liked Striker II, it needed another round of playtesting and error catching. (Though I did like one of the comments from one of their game designers about plasma weapons 'they may not have been as effective as grenade launchers, but at least they were a lot more expensive'. )

Mind you, fixing the plasma weapon problem also broke their terminology for 'main battle tank' - where a main battle tank could take a shot from its own primary weapon and not be penetrated....

But for the RPG... I loved the fact that it had rules for a lot of science fiction technology that wasn't in the Traveller universe, such as Wormhole and Stutterwarp Drives. (As a result of FF&S one of the races in my own SF setting had Keyhole drive tech in the equivalent of the 1940s... using vacuum tubes... big, expensive, fragile.... But they could do it.)

Until recently, I would gave said that GW at least has the financial stability to invest in proper playtesting and balance. Now... I think that they still have the money to do so, but if they keep paying out dividends instead of investing in updating product....

The Auld Grump

If GW goes bankrupt, clearly hasbro will move in and pick it up. Then, in the hub, we'll have Princess Twilight Sparkle introducing the newest member of the hasbro royalty, the Emperor of Mankind.

And, of course, the newest hit show, starring a insecure sister of battle, a brave but stupid ultramarine, and a guardsman that will back talk anyone.

 Crazyterran wrote:
If GW goes bankrupt, clearly hasbro will move in and pick it up. Then, in the hub, we'll have Princess Twilight Sparkle introducing the newest member of the hasbro royalty, the Emperor of Mankind.

And, of course, the newest hit show, starring a insecure sister of battle, a brave but stupid ultramarine, and a guardsman that will back talk anyone.

And the funny things is, all of that would still be miles ahead of the current gak that GW is producing.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
If GW goes bankrupt, clearly hasbro will move in and pick it up. Then, in the hub, we'll have Princess Twilight Sparkle introducing the newest member of the hasbro royalty, the Emperor of Mankind.

And, of course, the newest hit show, starring a insecure sister of battle, a brave but stupid ultramarine, and a guardsman that will back talk anyone.

And the funny things is, all of that would still be miles ahead of the current gak that GW is producing.

Plus one.