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.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
That would just be a waste of money. Understanding how a gamer works?

You just need people to write rules and playtesting.

I think you're very wrong about that.

How do I convince you that there are irreplaceable benefits to having a psychologist on a game design team?

 Pouncey wrote:
If not an English major, then what field of study would produce a better-skilled person for writing clear and engaging rules?

Depends on how the organization is done. If "English major" includes technical writing then an English major with a focus in technical writing would be acceptable. If "English major" refers only to literature then no, they'd be terrible for the job. Programmers would be the other good source for rule writers, since they have experience in both writing code that is 100% literal RAW in execution and in commenting their code/working as a team on it/etc. Engineers and scientists in general would have at least some experience with technical writing, and would be better than a fiction writer.

Playtesting is the thing GW hasn't done in all cases over the years.
But other companies don't do it either to a large extent. Have a look into mk3 of WMH and the recent errata.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
If not an English major, then what field of study would produce a better-skilled person for writing clear and engaging rules?

Depends on how the organization is done. If "English major" includes technical writing then an English major with a focus in technical writing would be acceptable. If "English major" refers only to literature then no, they'd be terrible for the job. Programmers would be the other good source for rule writers, since they have experience in both writing code that is 100% literal RAW in execution and in commenting their code/working as a team on it/etc. Engineers and scientists in general would have at least some experience with technical writing, and would be better than a fiction writer.

I imagine that GW would not hire the first English major to apply, and would ask more questions than just "Are you an English major?" when determining their qualifications.

Computer programmers would not be useful in this regard, because computer science skills don't translate well to writing rules for human minds to interpret. Generalizing computer programming to an extreme degree only results in equivocation.

Engineering has no useful applications to game design in terms of designing the rules.

Science is not even relevant.

And if you want a technical writer, you should just hire one, but again, they wouldn't be THAT useful since you're not writing documentation or manuals here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Playtesting is the thing GW hasn't done in all cases over the years.
But other companies don't do it either to a large extent. Have a look into mk3 of WMH and the recent errata.

Actually, GW has done extensive playtesting for all of their rules.

However, they have limited the pool of playtesters to the staff designing the rules and a handful of other players.

The solution for playtesting would be to release test rules to the Internet for free and then encourage players across the world to try them in their own games and send in their feedback, and make adjustments accordingly.

Unfortunately, that won't work because GW also wants to sell rulebooks, and releasing early versions of those rulebooks would cut into their profits should players decide to simply skip paying the fees for rulebooks and use the most recent playtesting rules instead.

The obvious solution to that is one that most companies gave chosen in recent years: Don't charge for rules, release them for free on the Internet and in every starter box, and provide a cheap paperback copy for anyone who wants a convenient booklet with the rules.

 Pouncey wrote:
I imagine that GW would not hire the first English major to apply, and would ask more questions than just "Are you an English major?" when determining their qualifications.

"Attitude is more important than skills."
-GW hiring policy

Computer programmers would not be useful in this regard, because computer science skills don't translate well to writing rules for human minds to interpret. Generalizing computer programming to an extreme degree only results in equivocation.

Uh, no, this is completely wrong. Programming translates very well to writing rules because you understand the concept that RAW has to work without interpretation. The language may change (just like it does when you're programming for different uses) but you have the mindset of "this is going to be used 100% literally, I must write exactly what I want it to do". A programmer also has experience with higher-level algorithm design, where you design the structure of a program and make sure that all of the logic works, something that is very similar to designing game rules. And they have to communicate all of these things clearly, which means being able to express things like "thing X does A, then B, then C goes into thing Y" with zero ambiguity so some other programmer doesn't create a bug when two sections have to interact with each other. If you can do those things you can write game rules that function properly.

Engineering has no useful applications to game design in terms of designing the rules.

Science is not even relevant.

Speaking as someone who is an engineer, you're completely wrong about this. Part of being a successful engineer is understanding how to communicate technical concepts clearly and effectively. It's like the programmer's "RAW is god" mindset, if you can write out product specifications such that someone on the other side of the world can look at your work, build the thing you described, and then plug it into a complex system and have everything work flawlessly you can write game rules. And because of this engineers have to take at least a class or two in technical writing, on top of any hands-on experience. So they might not be as experienced as someone who did a full major in technical writing, but they're in a much better position than someone who writes novels for a career.

And if you want a technical writer, you should just hire one, but again, they wouldn't be THAT useful since you're not writing documentation or manuals here.

100% wrong again. You ARE writing documentation/manuals, that's exactly what a game rulebook is.

Actually, GW has done extensive playtesting for all of their rules.

For definitions of "extensive" that do not include "doing enough of it". Playing a game or two on someone's lunch break (because playing the game is fun, not work, and you shouldn't get paid for it according to GW) is not "extensive" playtesting.

I wonder if anyone declaring how GW goes about/doesn't go about their playtesting in this thread has any concretical evidence or experience on the matter.

Seems like subjective guessing to me, at best.

 Runic wrote:
I wonder if anyone declaring how GW goes about/doesn't go about their playtesting in this thread has any concretical evidence or experience on the matter.

Seems like subjective guessing to me, at best.

Playtesting can be measured when you compare the published rule set with the posed FAQ's and errata later on.

 Runic wrote:
I wonder if anyone declaring how GW goes about/doesn't go about their playtesting in this thread has any concretical evidence or experience on the matter.

Seems like subjective guessing to me, at best.

GW, at least in the past, has commented (in WD articles, for example) on their playtesting.

 Peregrine wrote:
GW, at least in the past, has commented (in WD articles, for example) on their playtesting.

Do you happen to recall when the last one was written (ballpark) and what was written in it? Would be interesting to read if I can find the correct issue.

 Runic wrote:
Do you happen to recall when the last one was written (ballpark) and what was written in it? Would be interesting to read if I can find the correct issue.

Sorry, I don't.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
I imagine that GW would not hire the first English major to apply, and would ask more questions than just "Are you an English major?" when determining their qualifications.

"Attitude is more important than skills."
-GW hiring policy

Huh.

I wonder what would happen if someone with the right attitude who was completely incompetent applied for a job with them.

Computer programmers would not be useful in this regard, because computer science skills don't translate well to writing rules for human minds to interpret. Generalizing computer programming to an extreme degree only results in equivocation.

Uh, no, this is completely wrong. Programming translates very well to writing rules because you understand the concept that RAW has to work without interpretation. The language may change (just like it does when you're programming for different uses) but you have the mindset of "this is going to be used 100% literally, I must write exactly what I want it to do". A programmer also has experience with higher-level algorithm design, where you design the structure of a program and make sure that all of the logic works, something that is very similar to designing game rules. And they have to communicate all of these things clearly, which means being able to express things like "thing X does A, then B, then C goes into thing Y" with zero ambiguity so some other programmer doesn't create a bug when two sections have to interact with each other. If you can do those things you can write game rules that function properly.

That's the kind of thing where you learn how to use the correct instructions that have already been proven to work.

Not the kind of thing where you create the instructions out of nothingness because they don't exist yet.

Engineering has no useful applications to game design in terms of designing the rules.

Science is not even relevant.

Speaking as someone who is an engineer, you're completely wrong about this. Part of being a successful engineer is understanding how to communicate technical concepts clearly and effectively. It's like the programmer's "RAW is god" mindset, if you can write out product specifications such that someone on the other side of the world can look at your work, build the thing you described, and then plug it into a complex system and have everything work flawlessly you can write game rules. And because of this engineers have to take at least a class or two in technical writing, on top of any hands-on experience. So they might not be as experienced as someone who did a full major in technical writing, but they're in a much better position than someone who writes novels for a career.

Oh.

So then go apply to GW, get hired, and make better rules yourself then.

And if you want a technical writer, you should just hire one, but again, they wouldn't be THAT useful since you're not writing documentation or manuals here.

100% wrong again. You ARE writing documentation/manuals, that's exactly what a game rulebook is.

The people writing the rules aren't just documenting the rules, they are creating them.

Actually, GW has done extensive playtesting for all of their rules.

For definitions of "extensive" that do not include "doing enough of it". Playing a game or two on someone's lunch break (because playing the game is fun, not work, and you shouldn't get paid for it according to GW) is not "extensive" playtesting.

If you read the rest of that post, you'll notice that yes, that definition of "extensive" DOES include "not doing enough of it."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Runic wrote:
I wonder if anyone declaring how GW goes about/doesn't go about their playtesting in this thread has any concretical evidence or experience on the matter.

Seems like subjective guessing to me, at best.

I don't recall them releasing any test versions to the Internet.

Did I miss that happening?

 Pouncey wrote:
That's the kind of thing where you learn how to use the correct instructions that have already been proven to work.

Not the kind of thing where you create the instructions out of nothingness because they don't exist yet.

Clearly you have no idea how programming works then. There is a lot of creating instructions out of fundamental building blocks (much like game authors tend to use English words and not invent a whole new language) involved in anything but the most basic of programming. And you're also missing the point that it's about a mindset which encourages clarity and complete lack of ambiguity in communication, not the specific programming task.

Oh.

So then go apply to GW, get hired, and make better rules yourself then.

This assumes that GW cares about those things. They don't fail because they're unable to hire anyone qualified to write good rules, they fail because they don't give a about the rules being good. it doesn't matter if I could do a much better job of writing the rules to 40k (I almost certainly could), GW doesn't want the service I'm offering.

The people writing the rules aren't just documenting the rules, they are creating them.

And that's part of the problem. Game design and technical writing are two very different skills. It's possible to have a game designer with good technical writing skills, but GW should have at least one person with significant technical writing experience whose job is to turn the initial designs into a finished rulebook. And that person should have the final say on any published rules, regardless of who writes them. If they aren't up to the required standards they go back for revision until they are.

(This, btw, is how WOTC does it with MTC. This is why MTG doesn't have rule arguments.)

If you read the rest of that post, you'll notice that yes, that definition of "extensive" DOES include "not doing enough of it."

And my point is that it isn't "extensive" if they aren't doing enough. It's kind of what the word "extensive" means.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
That's the kind of thing where you learn how to use the correct instructions that have already been proven to work.

Not the kind of thing where you create the instructions out of nothingness because they don't exist yet.

Clearly you have no idea how programming works then. There is a lot of creating instructions out of fundamental building blocks (much like game authors tend to use English words and not invent a whole new language) involved in anything but the most basic of programming. And you're also missing the point that it's about a mindset which encourages clarity and complete lack of ambiguity in communication, not the specific programming task.

If the mindset is the important part, then the education they have is irrelevant.

Oh.

So then go apply to GW, get hired, and make better rules yourself then.

This assumes that GW cares about those things. They don't fail because they're unable to hire anyone qualified to write good rules, they fail because they don't give a about the rules being good. it doesn't matter if I could do a much better job of writing the rules to 40k (I almost certainly could), GW doesn't want the service I'm offering.

That's a separate issue then. Because now we're not talking about "who would make good rules" we're instead talking about "is having good rules important?"

The people writing the rules aren't just documenting the rules, they are creating them.

And that's part of the problem. Game design and technical writing are two very different skills. It's possible to have a game designer with good technical writing skills, but GW should have at least one person with significant technical writing experience whose job is to turn the initial designs into a finished rulebook. And that person should have the final say on any published rules, regardless of who writes them. If they aren't up to the required standards they go back for revision until they are.

(This, btw, is how WOTC does it with MTC. This is why MTG doesn't have rule arguments.)

We're talking about game design.

Unless you intend to have that technical writer creating the actual rules themselves instead of simply writing them up and insisting that what they are given be useful...

If you read the rest of that post, you'll notice that yes, that definition of "extensive" DOES include "not doing enough of it."

And my point is that it isn't "extensive" if they aren't doing enough. It's kind of what the word "extensive" means.

It's a paradox.

Their version of extensive would have been the very definition of extensive prior to the widespread popularity of the Internet, when widespread playtesting was impossible. This is also when their playtesting system was developed.

 Pouncey wrote:
If the mindset is the important part, then the education they have is irrelevant.

Uh, no. Education is where you get the mindset. Engineering/programming/technical writing/etc are learned skills, not something you're naturally born with.

That's a separate issue then. Because now we're not talking about "who would make good rules" we're instead talking about "is having good rules important?"

Now you're just saying random things. You posted "go work for GW", I explained why that is a silly thing to say. If you think that is off topic for this thread then why did you post it in the first place?

We're talking about game design.

Unless you intend to have that technical writer creating the actual rules themselves instead of simply writing them up and insisting that what they are given be useful...

Ok, clearly you don't understand how this works. To give a simple example: the game designer says "I want these models to move 6" and these models to move 12" per turn", based on their understanding of what makes a good game experience. The technical writer takes that concept and writes it in formal rules, then checks all possible interactions with other rules to make sure that there are no conflicts or ambiguous cases. If there are any the technical writer changes the wording of the rule(s) until there are no more problems. The end result is that the game designer's wishes about 6"/12" movement distance are clearly expressed so that the given models will always have that movement distance no matter how much of a RAW rules lawyer a given player tries to be.

Or, to give an analogy in a different field: a game designer is a novelist, a technical writer is their editor. The novelist creates an appealing work of fiction, the editor makes sure everything is polished and ready for sale.

Their version of extensive would have been the very definition of extensive prior to the widespread popularity of the Internet, when widespread playtesting was impossible. This is also when their playtesting system was developed.

Uh, what? What does the internet have to do with anything? WOTC does extensive playtesting on MTG, entirely with internal employees (some of whom are hired for the sole purpose of playtesting, IIRC). The issue is not that GW doesn't use the internet, it's that they play too few games and don't play them as part of any kind of systematic testing environment.

 Peregrine wrote:
Or, to give an analogy in a different field: a game designer is a novelist, a technical writer is their editor. The novelist creates an appealing work of fiction, the editor makes sure everything is polished and ready for sale.

This may be why GW hired novelists to design their rules and not editors.

Edit:

Oh, I see my error. I've been focusing on the "design" part of this when what's actually been being talked about is the "writing" part. I feel dumb now. Sorry.

I think I got confused at some point because GW has the same people do both.

Yes, a technical writer would be better for actually writing the rules themselves.

 Pouncey wrote:


I don't recall them releasing any test versions to the Internet.

Did I miss that happening?

This much can be said ofcourse, they haven't done such a thing and it requires no insight to see. The rest is guessing.

 Runic wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:


I don't recall them releasing any test versions to the Internet.

Did I miss that happening?

This much can be said ofcourse, they haven't done such a thing and it requires no insight to see. The rest is guessing.

Well, that's the important part. That's how you have to do playtesting for a game as complex as WH40k if you want to catch errors. With all respect to the MtG team, I'm certain they do a fine job, but the rules for MtG are rather short and (IIRC) they actually have a formula for determining how powerful to make their new cards, allowing for acceptable variances in power. WH40k, on the other hand, is WAY more complex, with so many variables that interact with each other that such a formula would be a wall of text on its own. A small team of dedicated playtesters is simply insufficient for playtesting a game as complex as 40k, you need a crapload of playtesters doing things in a huge variety of ways.

RE: Attitude over skills, I can see that. The manager of my GW store didn't even know about/play the game until he started running the store; he had managed other businesses but knew like nothing about GW games. When he told me that I was shocked, because that makes zero sense to hire a store manager that doesn't know anything about the product you're selling. He's picked up a bit of it now, but still. It also doesn't help that people like to ask him about rule questions because, I guess, they assume he knows about it since he manages a GW store. He's a great guy, don't get me wrong, but he's not a GW "hobbyist" at all.

RE: The style of the rules, I think that's a big issue. Compare how the 40k rulebook reads to like the Warmachine rulebook (which is also available as a free PDF). The GW one reads very conversational, and less of an instruction manual. The warmachine book reads like an instruction manual with language that indicates what is or isn't allowed in clear, concise terms. That, IMHO, is the style GW needs to use for their own rules. Keep the conversational tone out of the rules themselves, and keep it in the hobby type sections only.

RE: Playtesting, I do think GW playtests, but I think because of their very limited way of playing the game (preferring narrative scenarios, not powergaming at all, etc.) it does more harm than good because they never are able to see the broken combos. It's great they approach that style of play, but not everyone does and will try to eke out every bit they can in order to "win" so having vague rules or missing key interactions harms the game in the long run because it leaves these combos open to abuse. Couple that with the fact the designers often are handed design for a miniature and told to "make it work", and given a deadline for when it's coming out, and you likely would not have enough time to fully playtest it anyways and find all the combos, only the most basic use cases.

A lot of things are the designers fault, but not everything. A good chunk is related to sales deadlines (e.g. this model is coming out on X date, rules need to be ready by then) and sales being the focus of the company, not having good rules. It is possible to do both (Privateer Press manages this, and probably has a bigger design team than GW, although they aren't always perfect; see Skorne until recently), but GW doesn't or can't do it and as a result the game suffers.

 Pouncey wrote:
the rules for MtG are rather short and (IIRC)

You recall incorrectly. Here's the 200+ page rules for MTG: http://media.wizards.com/2017/downloads/MagicCompRules_20170119.pdf

Now, there is a 30-page basic rulebook for new players to learn the core mechanics, but that doesn't cover everything. It might be good enough for "casual" games where all players are fine with house-ruling any rule disputes, but if you want to play the game in tournaments or settle rule disputes consistently you're going to be reading that full rulebook.

they actually have a formula for determining how powerful to make their new cards, allowing for acceptable variances in power.

They have no such thing. In fact, given that each set introduces new mechanics, such a formula-based design approach can't exist. At most a formula could provide stats for the basic "filler" cards that every set needs for draft purposes: generic creatures, basic removal spells, etc. They way they actually balance the game is through iterative playtesting.

WH40k, on the other hand, is WAY more complex, with so many variables that interact with each other that such a formula would be a wall of text on its own.

Nope. 40k is not way more complex than MTG. In fact, it's arguable that it's even more complex at all. It's certainly much shallower in strategy, so the only real question is whether the sheer rules bloat of 40k is enough to match the vast number of potential interactions between MTG's tens of thousands of unique cards. If MTG is less complicated and easier to playtest it's only because of the systematic approach to game design, where WOTC makes sure the core rules are a solid foundation and can cover all possible interactions no matter what the individual cards do. GW could do the same, if they cared enough.

 Runic wrote:
I wonder if anyone declaring how GW goes about/doesn't go about their playtesting in this thread has any concretical evidence or experience on the matter.

Seems like subjective guessing to me, at best.

A few good friends of mine back home were one of the external playtest groups gw used up until they canned the system when someone else leaked the fifth edition ruleset. Even then, though they playtested, they didn't always want to take on the feedback. At least Two of my friends have also had their names mentioned in the 'special thanks' sections of either the main rulebook, or codices as well.

So yeah, I've heard some interesting first hand accounts, often in confidence.

 Peregrine wrote:
...You recall incorrectly. Here's the 200+ page rules for MTG: http://media.wizards.com/2017/downloads/MagicCompRules_20170119.pdf...

The thing about the two hundred page document is that the font size is big and the spacing is large (if the AoS rules were formatted that way they'd be twenty pages long) ([/hyperbole]), most of it is irrelevant to most games (22 pages on weird multiplayer variants?), and the length of the rules is a very different statement from the ease of use of the rules.

That two-hundred-page document is well sorted, well edited, clear, consistent, and it's very, very easy to find the answer to any question you want to ask. The rules for Warhammer are the exact opposite, they're chunky, redundant, don't actually answer a whole bunch of very basic questions (find me the point where the rules tell us that a vehicle weapon's line of sight is restricted to its fire arc), have an irrational fondness for using the same phrase to mean different things, and are loaded with loopholes that require arguing.

Give me the two-hundred-page document written by math people over the unedited two-hundred-page mess that doesn't give clear answers to any questions any day.

 Pouncey wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
If not an English major, then what field of study would produce a better-skilled person for writing clear and engaging rules?

Depends on how the organization is done. If "English major" includes technical writing then an English major with a focus in technical writing would be acceptable. If "English major" refers only to literature then no, they'd be terrible for the job. Programmers would be the other good source for rule writers, since they have experience in both writing code that is 100% literal RAW in execution and in commenting their code/working as a team on it/etc. Engineers and scientists in general would have at least some experience with technical writing, and would be better than a fiction writer.

I imagine that GW would not hire the first English major to apply, and would ask more questions than just "Are you an English major?" when determining their qualifications.

Computer programmers would not be useful in this regard, because computer science skills don't translate well to writing rules for human minds to interpret. Generalizing computer programming to an extreme degree only results in equivocation.

Engineering has no useful applications to game design in terms of designing the rules.

Science is not even relevant.

And if you want a technical writer, you should just hire one, but again, they wouldn't be THAT useful since you're not writing documentation or manuals here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Playtesting is the thing GW hasn't done in all cases over the years.
But other companies don't do it either to a large extent. Have a look into mk3 of WMH and the recent errata.

Actually, GW has done extensive playtesting for all of their rules.

However, they have limited the pool of playtesters to the staff designing the rules and a handful of other players.

The solution for playtesting would be to release test rules to the Internet for free and then encourage players across the world to try them in their own games and send in their feedback, and make adjustments accordingly.

Unfortunately, that won't work because GW also wants to sell rulebooks, and releasing early versions of those rulebooks would cut into their profits should players decide to simply skip paying the fees for rulebooks and use the most recent playtesting rules instead.

The obvious solution to that is one that most companies gave chosen in recent years: Don't charge for rules, release them for free on the Internet and in every starter box, and provide a cheap paperback copy for anyone who wants a convenient booklet with the rules.

How are a games rules not "documentation and manuals."
Technical writers study game rules as teaching material, most technical writing classes require you to design and write a game rulebook.
Technical writing competitions, yes there is such a thing, very often have game rules as the topic.
It's exactly the skill that is useful.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Give me the two-hundred-page document written by math people over the unedited two-hundred-page mess that doesn't give clear answers to any questions any day.

Well yes, my position is that the MTG approach is clearly better than what GW is doing. The point wasn't "OMG 200+ PAGES SO BAD", it was a response to the idea that MTG is easy to design and balance because the rules are so simple. The rules aren't simple at all, they're just very well designed and maintained.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
...You recall incorrectly. Here's the 200+ page rules for MTG: http://media.wizards.com/2017/downloads/MagicCompRules_20170119.pdf...

The thing about the two hundred page document is that the font size is big and the spacing is large (if the AoS rules were formatted that way they'd be twenty pages long) ([/hyperbole]), most of it is irrelevant to most games (22 pages on weird multiplayer variants?), and the length of the rules is a very different statement from the ease of use of the rules.

That two-hundred-page document is well sorted, well edited, clear, consistent, and it's very, very easy to find the answer to any question you want to ask. The rules for Warhammer are the exact opposite, they're chunky, redundant, don't actually answer a whole bunch of very basic questions (find me the point where the rules tell us that a vehicle weapon's line of sight is restricted to its fire arc), have an irrational fondness for using the same phrase to mean different things, and are loaded with loopholes that require arguing.

Give me the two-hundred-page document written by math people over the unedited two-hundred-page mess that doesn't give clear answers to any questions any day.

The mtg rules are a great example on how to design and word rules for clear consistent rules, I agree. thats the kind of care GW needs to give their rules.

 Peregrine wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Give me the two-hundred-page document written by math people over the unedited two-hundred-page mess that doesn't give clear answers to any questions any day.

Well yes, my position is that the MTG approach is clearly better than what GW is doing. The point wasn't "OMG 200+ PAGES SO BAD", it was a response to the idea that MTG is easy to design and balance because the rules are so simple. The rules aren't simple at all, they're just very well designed and maintained.

I'd argue that there's a difference between 'simple' and 'short'; MTG gave a lot of thought to first principles (what any game entity is, resolution steps, etc.) in such a way that despite being two hundred pages long I would call their rules 'simple'.

On a stream a couple weeks back, Simon Grant (A GW rules writer) mentioned offhand that they had decided Magnus should be 400 points when they started playtesting him, and in their 1st playtest against Space Wolves he killed more than 400 points in his 1st 2 turns.

So they did "playtest" to some degree, though clearly not much.

In any case, I'm pretty sure the issues stem from the upper ladder of the corporate command chain.

I don't believe it's the designers fault, in a sense. It's quite a common occurrance, on many fields, that management/middle management wants results, and the publication cycle is fast (as we can see now, it is -really- fast with new releases.)

This leads to there not being enough time to test things thoroughly. And even if a designer wanted to do extensive playtesting, they might not receive a green light to do so, but are instead pushed into writing new stuff when the current stuff is basically just about finished with minimal checks.

This, most of the time, is the reality with different publications on many fields. The designers/writers are not necessarily to blame, or to be blamed completely.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

I'd argue that there's a difference between 'simple' and 'short'; MTG gave a lot of thought to first principles (what any game entity is, resolution steps, etc.) in such a way that despite being two hundred pages long I would call their rules 'simple'.

You've hit something significant there; GW products have a serious problem with consistency of the game entities which they seem to constantly try to correct with half measures (with the exception of 5th edition's rulebook). The problem with the Haemotrope reactor and promethium relay pipes alone highlight the lack of a consistent toolkit rather glaringly. I'd suggest the reason the complaints haven't prompted action is that the Imperial faction uses basically the same components so often, that cross faction standardisation would be (perceived) as style cramping.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Runic wrote:
In any case, I'm pretty sure the issues stem from the upper ladder of the corporate command chain.

I don't believe it's the designers fault, in a sense. It's quite a common occurrance, on many fields, that management/middle management wants results, and the publication cycle is fast (as we can see now, it is -really- fast with new releases.)

This leads to there not being enough time to test things thoroughly. And even if a designer wanted to do extensive playtesting, they might not receive a green light to do so, but are instead pushed into writing new stuff when the current stuff is basically just about finished with minimal checks.

This, most of the time, is the reality with different publications on many fields. The designers/writers are not necessarily to blame, or to be blamed completely.

Conversely (and by their own admission it was the case) the management branch wasn't responsive to customer feedback so as to reign in the poorer decisions by, lets say, Matt Ward. Being in charge means everything is your fault after all.

Building on your point, however talented an article producer may be involved in the production line, if they're working towards the wrong objectives, with the wrong apparatus of quality perception and potentially with the wrong tools - and by that i'm thinking basic layout systems - the product can only be 'good' by a convergence of uncontrolled factors in its favor.

 Capt. Camping wrote:
Because of fluff, orks will never be competitive

Orks control most of the galaxy in the fluff and are the predominant civilizaiton of the 40k Milky Way. And outside of rare and powerful events like the Great Crusade, Macharius' crusade, or the ones led by Alicia Dominica and her handmaidens, they're never depicted as really permanently losing territory.

 Melissia wrote:

 Capt. Camping wrote:
Because of fluff, orks will never be competitive

Orks control most of the galaxy in the fluff and are the predominant civilizaiton of the 40k Milky Way. And outside of rare and powerful events like the Great Crusade, Macharius' crusade, or the ones led by Alicia Dominica and her handmaidens, they're never depicted as really permanently losing territory.

That's not really a compliment though. Orks are basically the cannon fodder of the setting, so what if they never permanently lose and come back later? Orks almost every time they show up get the gak kicked out of them, and the argument was about the game, not the fluff. In the fluff Orks are actually terrifying, on the tabletop they are basically easy to beat to keep up that "noble Imperium defeating the enemies of Mankind" stuff.