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.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Bluntly, if they hadn't posted the stupid "conversion" image? I don't think it would have been as big of a deal. People demanding to know the "hows" and "whys" of the mechanics always seem to pose more issues than the actual mechanics over time.

Agreed.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
The amount of FAQs that usually get put out a few days after the so-called relase makes me thing there is a grand total of 0 playtesting groups.

It seems that some portion of the external playtesting occurs *after* the rules have already gone to print. My understanding of the process that I've been able to put together from different comments is that early stage external playtesting acts as more of a focus group - they are provided incomplete rules in order for them to test certain gameplay concepts more or less in a vacuum and without full context in order to evaluate the user experience, rather than for balancing or proofing. This enables GW to test lots of stuff without risking leaks, but at the same time the testers don't actually know what they are testing and don't necessarily know how it all fits together - is it a new game entirely? rules for a new codex? the next update for an existing game system? etc. Something like these shapes the playtesters might have reviewed favorably only having seen a portion of the implementation and expected more would be done with it, not realizing that there wasn't all that much more to the scope. I.E. - "So do these shapes work?", "Yep, would love to see what you do with them".

Late stage external playtesting is more for proofing and balance, it starts very close to when the books are actually being printed (which is fairly quick and happens in a tight window relative to when the rules are actually released), it might last for only 2-3 weeks total before GW sends the files to publication and allows GW to make last minute points/stat/rules adjustments and make a final balancing pass before going to print. The need for the FAQ and errata after release is often as a result of these last minute changes because there often isn't a lot of time to fully review and playtest them externally prior to going to print, so errors and mistakes are usually "baked in" as a result and the only way to correct them is post-release.

 Kanluwen wrote:
I'm hesitant to lay it all at the game designers' feet. I'll be interested to see which playtest groups get credited and if this was intended to tie in to the mass market boardgames that have been shown off earlier this year(which all look to be hex-based).

Blaming the players as always.

GW's game designers seem to have very little power to be honest. It is miniature designers and executives who really control the game, and game designers have to do what those two groups tell them.

 kodos wrote:
Spain is the one country were also Warhammer Fantasy is/was played with centimeters

All GW games used to be in cm, over here, not only BFG and WFB. I distinctly remember that caused some issues with random movements when playing international tournaments ^^

But that was in the past, now, and for years now, all countries use the standarized inches.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Bluntly, if they hadn't posted the stupid "conversion" image? I don't think it would have been as big of a deal. People demanding to know the "hows" and "whys" of the mechanics always seem to pose more issues than the actual mechanics over time.

Hm.... well, then we'd have measurements with absolutely no context at all, which seems worse, even, tbh. There's a reason why in other games, even when using arbitrary measures, use Range 1, Range 2 and the like... because EVERYONE knows what they mean, then, and which is smaller and which is larger.

Had they used Range 1-2-3-4? That would have been no problem. Range Triangle-Circle-Square-Pentagon, without even a notion of context? Not. Good. At. All.

And with it is barely workable... even though it seems that it doesn't matter at all.

 Albertorius wrote:
Had they used Range 1-2-3-4? That would have been no problem. Range Triangle-Circle-Square-Pentagon, without even a notion of context? Not. Good. At. All.

With the exception of the circle, you would have a 3-, 4- and 5-sided shape.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:
Had they used Range 1-2-3-4? That would have been no problem. Range Triangle-Circle-Square-Pentagon, without even a notion of context? Not. Good. At. All.

With the exception of the circle, you would have a 3-, 4- and 5-sided shape.

And still more convoluted than simply 1-2-3-4. So, why? How does it improve the game?

 Albertorius wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:
Had they used Range 1-2-3-4? That would have been no problem. Range Triangle-Circle-Square-Pentagon, without even a notion of context? Not. Good. At. All.

With the exception of the circle, you would have a 3-, 4- and 5-sided shape.

And still more convoluted than simply 1-2-3-4. So, why? How does it improve the game?

Well, there's no 1- or 2-sided shapes that they could use. As to why they decided to use it

 Ghaz wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:
Had they used Range 1-2-3-4? That would have been no problem. Range Triangle-Circle-Square-Pentagon, without even a notion of context? Not. Good. At. All.

With the exception of the circle, you would have a 3-, 4- and 5-sided shape.

And still more convoluted than simply 1-2-3-4. So, why? How does it improve the game?

Well, there's no 1- or 2-sided shapes that they could use. As to why they decided to use it

Could use a circle for 1 and a crescent moon for 2.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:
Had they used Range 1-2-3-4? That would have been no problem. Range Triangle-Circle-Square-Pentagon, without even a notion of context? Not. Good. At. All.

With the exception of the circle, you would have a 3-, 4- and 5-sided shape.

And still more convoluted than simply 1-2-3-4. So, why? How does it improve the game?

Well, there's no 1- or 2-sided shapes that they could use. As to why they decided to use it

A circle is a 1-sided shape. A half-circle, or a crescent moon is a 2-sided shape

 Albertorius wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Bluntly, if they hadn't posted the stupid "conversion" image? I don't think it would have been as big of a deal. People demanding to know the "hows" and "whys" of the mechanics always seem to pose more issues than the actual mechanics over time.

Hm.... well, then we'd have measurements with absolutely no context at all, which seems worse, even, tbh. There's a reason why in other games, even when using arbitrary measures, use Range 1, Range 2 and the like... because EVERYONE knows what they mean, then, and which is smaller and which is larger.

Had they used Range 1-2-3-4? That would have been no problem. Range Triangle-Circle-Square-Pentagon, without even a notion of context? Not. Good. At. All.

There was context. You just have chosen to dislike it.

The first thing you’ll notice is the Movement characteristic – what exactly does 3◯ mean? To keep everything quick and easy to measure, Kill Team uses a system of four colours with corresponding shapes to represent common distances.

The context? You look at the measurement tools. You move 3 circles worth of distance, meaning place the tool 3 times to make your move.

It's not "3 Circles OR 1 Pentagon OR 6 Triangles". The measurements had a set value, as did the actual Movement characteristic. This, if done properly, would allow for different sets of modifiers--i.e. Certain units always treat modifiers of Circle to Movement as Triangle instead or terrain that has a modifier of Pentagon can only be traversed by models with Jump, Fly, or Grapples or terrain/debuffs/whatever removing a point from the Movement characteristic while leaving the actual distance moved untouched, allowing for things like a Pentagon or Square movement unit to get hit by a debuff and be far, far more affected than a similar unit that moves Circle or Triangle to be utterly hosed and basically cease to be able to function.

And with it is barely workable... even though it seems that it doesn't matter at all.

More's the pity, because it really does seem like a fairly solid concept if it truly has been utilized correctly and if they hadn't been willing to expose the "bones" of the measurements right out of the gate.

Yes we all know range sticks can be used in clever ways.

Many of us also knew GW wouldn't.

 Kanluwen wrote:
There was context. You just have chosen to dislike it.

No. It simply is even worse that way.

The context? You look at the measurement tools. You move 3 circles worth of distance, meaning place the tool 3 times to make your move.

Which makes it three times as likely that people will measure wrong, yes. We discussed that, and I said already that had they used range sticks ala X-Wing or the like (1-Circle, 2-Circle, etc) that would have been workable. But it's not, it's "add three times the chance of error".

More's the pity, because it really does seem like a fairly solid concept if it truly has been utilized correctly and if they hadn't been willing to expose the "bones" of the measurements right out of the gate.

There's the bones of a good idea there, yes. But I don't think those bones need the symbols.

Symbols just makes referencing the data cards more important.

Not a big deal if you ask me.

Plus aren't half of the players used to Gamer type controls? Or is Xbox and Playstation doing things wrong too.

 Albertorius wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
There was context. You just have chosen to dislike it.

No. It simply is even worse that way.

As I said: you've just chosen to dislike it.

The context? You look at the measurement tools. You move 3 circles worth of distance, meaning place the tool 3 times to make your move.

Which makes it three times as likely that people will measure wrong, yes. We discussed that, and I said already that had they used range sticks ala X-Wing or the like (1-Circle, 2-Circle, etc) that would have been workable. But it's not, it's "add three times the chance of error".

You literally cannot screw up movement with this system, unless you're actively trying to or you cannot recognize the shapes given on the datacards.

More's the pity, because it really does seem like a fairly solid concept if it truly has been utilized correctly and if they hadn't been willing to expose the "bones" of the measurements right out of the gate.

There's the bones of a good idea there, yes. But I don't think those bones need the symbols.

And I don't think we needed to know the exact numbers each corresponded to before the game is even out. All this doom and gloom over the system all because what, there's shapes on a ruler instead of numbers? Oh noes!

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Symbols just makes referencing the data cards more important.

Not a big deal if you ask me.

Plus aren't half of the players used to Gamer type controls? Or is Xbox and Playstation doing things wrong too.

What. No one is saying inches/numbers should be used for absolutely everything, what a weird false equivalency.

 Kanluwen wrote:
You literally cannot screw up movement with this system, unless you're actively trying to or you cannot recognize the shapes given on the datacards.

Putting three times on the table, sequentially, the same ruler to mark the distance moved? Right, no chance at all to screw it. It's not as if people didn't already screw putting a ruler just the one time...

And I don't think we needed to know the exact numbers each corresponded to before the game is even out. All this doom and gloom over the system all because what, there's shapes on a ruler instead of numbers? Oh noes!

Yes, sure, just because of that.

Kepp building up that strawman. It's looking real pretty from down here.

Maybe read what I said? like when I said "using 1-Circle, 2-Circle etc rulers"? That might give you a hint that the symbols, per se, are not the problem, if they decided to go that way.

Why do people always characterise negative feedback as "doom and gloom" and other hyperbolic nonsense?

It's fine to say "I don't like symbols if numbers would communicate the information more clearly" and it's not some ridiculous overly negative statement. Trying to make out that it is is just dishonest argument.

What is the advantage of symbols over numbers for the end user?

 Ghaz wrote:
Well, there's no 1- or 2-sided shapes that they could use. As to why they decided to use it

Yup, because - = don't exist. Or say o 8. Or 1 2. Or A B. Or I II. Or...

Kanluwen wrote:Bluntly, if they hadn't posted the stupid "conversion" image? I don't think it would have been as big of a deal.

Yeah, no one would look at the symbols and asked 'why the stupid, making no sense, illogical progression when you could have sorted it by number of sides and make it maybe not elegant, but usable'. Or look at the gauge and went 'hey, wait a minute, these are just inches, why you can't use numbers or symbols that actually make sense'.

Maybe you are incapable of seeing things without a picture from GW, but please don't assume others can't add 2 to 2

Kanluwen wrote:Yeah, really wish they would have just left the "mystery" in and just shown off the gauge and shown how modifiers work. I was worried about them waffling very quickly on this.

You mean 'notice how stupid the mechanics are once people pointed it out then went full damage control mode by trying to de-stupid them so people still click buy'? Because yeah, they ""waffled"" on dumb design and are trying to fix it now. But in sane circles, it's called 'customer support' not 'waffling'. Unless you think replacing square wheels on car with round ones is 'waffling' on genius design no one is smart enough to understand too?

chaos0xomega was absolutely correct when he said that the use of those range bands opened the design space to use them different ways, which would have been cool. But today's article indicates that's not the case, so currently if feels more than a bit gimmicky.

Kinda feels like they saw how stuff worked in other modern games and went "I want some of that action" without understanding the underlaying reasons why those games did it.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Symbols just makes referencing the data cards more important.

Not a big deal if you ask me.

Plus aren't half of the players used to Gamer type controls? Or is Xbox and Playstation doing things wrong too.

Let's see:



You were saying?

Gee, I have no idea which two buttons here are supposed to be 1-2 and which 3-4. Maybe because these symbols actually make sense?

I don't mind symbols instead of numbers. But with symbols being stupid mess and melee combat peeing all over realism/elite units I am starting to doubt anyone not just playtested rules, but even proofread them at all...

 Irbis wrote:

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Symbols just makes referencing the data cards more important.

Not a big deal if you ask me.

Plus aren't half of the players used to Gamer type controls? Or is Xbox and Playstation doing things wrong too.

Let's see:



You were saying?

Gee, I have no idea which two buttons here are supposed to be 1-2 and which 3-4. Maybe because these symbols actually make sense?

I don't mind symbols instead of numbers. But with symbols being stupid mess and melee combat peeing all over realism/elite units I am starting to doubt anyone not just playtested rules, but even proofread them at all...

This is quite possibly one of the more cryptic posts I've seen on DakkaDakka. Are... A and B 1 and 2 because they're the first two letters of the alphabet? and Y is 3 because.. 3 lines? and X is made of 4 branches so it is 4?
Or is X 2 because it has 2 lines, and B is 3 because it looks like a 3 with an extra line? A is a 4 with an extra line, so must be 4?

or are A, B, X, and Y, A, B, X and Y, and not 1,2,3,4 at all?

Well, I would think A=1, B=2, X=3 and Z=4, just by regular progression, but I wouldn't usually associate those with any measurement, same way I would never really associate the playstation pad symbols for measurements either ^^.

 Geifer wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
They revealed in more depth how the movement system works.

Awful.

They should have just used numbers. As user kodos theorized, they used the shapes because they saw others doing it, but had no idea why they were doing it.

Predictably so. Somewhere in those long posts of yours you praised proprietary tools with the caveat, and I'm only going to paraphrase here, if done well. You can save yourself a whole lot of typing in a thread about a GW game and just write that. GW's current rules designers aren't good at their job. Haven't been since they fully took over from the older designers that used to work at GW, and haven't gotten any better since.

That's if you define their job as designing games. More accurately they're there to help sell toy soldiers. They seem to be better at that.

Didn't you even speculate yourself earlier that some GW manager may have seen others use proprietary tools and mandated their inclusion in Kill Team without any game related reason? Well, here we are. And I'll just repeat myself: predictably so.

When were those old designers? People complained about GW rules as far as I can remember, which is 1997 or so. Maybe in the 80s and early 90s they were on par with everyone else, but after that the changing landscape outpaced them in terms of rules design because the goal was to 1) not rock the boat too much for existing players 2) drive the sale of models.

or are A, B, X, and Y, A, B, X and Y, and not 1,2,3,4 at all?

Seeing as the symbols are not tied to any numerical value (to the operator anyway), the post is pointless. X on a gamepad isn't a number, it's an action within the game, and as games have near limitless number of actions possible, the symbol needs to be abstract. Whereas in Kill Team a triangle is ALWAYS and ONLY an inch. There is no other option. It will not turn into "triangle=shooting attack" at any point.

Controller buttons don't have to represent a numeric value. It doesn't matter which button is button 1 and which one is button 2, because it'll just pop up on the screen "press A".

Ranges do have a numerical value, which is why it's silly we don't just use the symbols we've already assigned them, 1, 2, 3 instead of triangle, circle, square.

There's no real value in comparing controllers to ranges in a wargame, they have different goals.

Video game controllers? A useless comparison. Playstation controllers are not used to measure distances. The main problem with GW's silly symbols is that when I look at a game board, I don't think "hmm, that one is 3 circles away... the other one is triangle square...."

Using the gauge three times to move a mini 6" is dumb. This system adds unnecessary steps.

 Kanluwen wrote:
I'm hesitant to lay it all at the game designers' feet. I'll be interested to see which playtest groups get credited and if this was intended to tie in to the mass market boardgames that have been shown off earlier this year(which all look to be hex-based).

No, no, no, no, no. (No.) Games designers are responsible and accountable for the rules they write according to the design brief they are given. Play testers feedback, advise and suggest. No more. The designer is responsible for taking that on board (or not) to build and refine the game rules. The quality of the rules is never the fault of the play testers.

And even if the play testing is gak, that’s ALSO down to the games designer for not building a quality enough play testing group!

Now gamers designers can be sabotaged in their efforts by a bad brief, not given enough time or support, etc. That’s where the studio management and the product owner come in. And ofc us punters have no idea about any of that. That’s still not the fault of playtesters tho.

Bob? Looks like our tape measure sales just aren’t what they could be. Just too many places to buy non Hobby tape measures. Any chance our next game could work in a virtually mandatory proprietary measurement device?

Okay. Thanks, Bob. I knew I could count on you to be a team player. Oooh, while you’re at it, maybe put some shaped symbols on the gauge. Kids love those.

Gotta run. I’m cutting and pasting incorrect weapons and equipment into our next under city release. What? Yeah, of course we’re going to release something for gritty under city just weeks before we drop a new edition for it.
Suckas! All right, gotta go.

 Albertorius wrote:
chaos0xomega was absolutely correct when he said that the use of those range bands opened the design space to use them different ways, which would have been cool. But today's article indicates that's not the case, so currently if feels more than a bit gimmicky.

Kinda feels like they saw how stuff worked in other modern games and went "I want some of that action" without understanding the underlaying reasons why those games did it.

Fully agree. Lots of interesting ways to have worked with this. On current info, GW seem to have taken advantage of little of them, leaving it as a added complication gimmick for no benefit.

 privateer4hire wrote:
Bob? Looks like our tape measure sales just aren’t what they could be. Just too many places to buy non Hobby tape measures. Any chance our next game could work in a virtually mandatory proprietary measurement device?

Okay. Thanks, Bob. I knew I could count on you to be a team player. Oooh, while you’re at it, maybe put some shaped symbols on the gauge. Kids love those.

Gotta run. I’m cutting and pasting incorrect weapons and equipment into our next under city release. What? Yeah, of course we’re going to release something for gritty under city just weeks before we drop a new edition for it.
Suckas! All right, gotta go.

"Introducing... the Citadel 'Munitorum Farsight Targetranger'

I am absolutely BLOWN AWAY by the incredible design of this thing. What do you think Eddie?"

Distances in Kill Team are ultimately still measured in inches, so you’re very welcome to stick to your trusty tape measure if you prefer.

They literally admit the whole geometry exercise is pointless, lol.