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.

That's less about customers being unable to provide solutions and more about developers trying to please every market group which results in creating issues because each different group of people interprets things differently.

That said I do agree, there are many times where I can be critical of things but not know how on earth to fix them. I can see the problem, I can outline the problem, but I can't suggest a suitable fix.

That's on the developer/manufacturer/whatever to both understand the logic and angle of an opinion on a problem and then to either agree with it and find a solution; agree and note that a solution isn't possible; or disagree and outline logically why (or at least to disagree).

 kodos wrote:

hence it is a problem if you use the word in a context were people can confuse them with the Star Wars Universe, but you are free to use that in any other way

Not quite true. Even though the word first appears in the 1952 short story "Robots of the world! Arise!" by Mari Wolf, Lucasfilm have still gone after companies who use it (despite only trademarking it in 2009...). Verizon had a line of Android phones called DROID, they had to pay Lucasfilm an undisclosed sum to use it.

Nomeny wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

Spoiler:

- Sub factions gone. Ironically, it felt a lot less restrictive back when you didn't have to worry about what <buzzword> your army is.

This is why I say gamers don't know what they want and shouldn't have a hand in creating the games they play. Six years ago, everyone was crying about this, how Marines were the only ones with extra faction rules and it wasn't fair that their <insert faction here> only got the basic ork, eldar, tau, chaos rules that everyone else gets. I much prefer what we have today for factions than how things were in 2015.

There was this great video I watched recently where one of the directors producing Magic gave 20 points on game design; one of them was that players are great at identifying problems, but the opposite of great at providing fixes.

So true.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 kodos wrote:

hence it is a problem if you use the word in a context were people can confuse them with the Star Wars Universe, but you are free to use that in any other way

Not quite true. Even though the word first appears in the 1952 short story "Robots of the world! Arise!" by Mari Wolf, Lucasfilm have still gone after companies who use it (despite only trademarking it in 2009...). Verizon had a line of Android phones called DROID, they had to pay Lucasfilm an undisclosed sum to use it.

and in our "circle" proably the most famous case is of course Battledroids. who changed their name to BattleTECH with the second edition

Nomeny 806446 11417883 wrote:There was this great video I watched recently where one of the directors producing Magic gave 20 points on game design; one of them was that players are great at identifying problems, but the opposite of great at providing fixes.

Well that is because for every company the first group that has to be made happy by any change is the share holders, then the company itself etc. Finding problems with w40k is easy. Game too big, tries to run on a skirmish set of rules and mind set, when running 60+ models per side. All the playtesters are either in house, whose way of dealing with game problems is stuff like roll dice or agree on something, or playtesters are good tournament players, so they find most stuff easy and if something isn't easy, it is good because they like the challange and complexity of system lets them show the difference in skills between them and others better. So the game rules set is sometimes writen for tournament players, with input from tournament players.
And then there is the other elephant in the room, style of GW updates. There is no way to balance the game when GW updates their armies one at a time. This always ends in huge power gaps, waiting years for a book and when combined with the no model no rules policy it really limits what GW can actualy do. It is a wonder that they even do stuff like the crushing stamped in a WD. They do seem to want to update the game in a seson style way, but it doesn't work. Games, including no table top ones, that do it have fewer armies,factions or characters. the speed of updating stuff is slow, comparing to other games that exist. Waiting 3-6 months for a fix is considered fast in the w40k world. Waiting 1-2 years is normal, and some factions wait years aka whol editions to be fixed and be fun to play. This just doesn't work with something that requires a big investment like a full w40k army. And it is one of the reasons why GW core games have such bad player retention.

Karol wrote:

Nomeny 806446 11417883 wrote:There was this great video I watched recently where one of the directors producing Magic gave 20 points on game design; one of them was that players are great at identifying problems, but the opposite of great at providing fixes.

Well that is because for every company the first group that has to be made happy by any change is the share holders, then the company itself etc.

No. You're missing the point.

"The players are good at pointing out that there is a problem, but terrible at providing solutions" (or, to put it another way: The purpose of play testing is to identify problem areas, ignore any 'helpful' suggestions that the players make on how to fix the problem areas. Finding solutions to the problem that fit the product design is the designer's job.') is true for -every- game. Hell, there's a quote along similar lines attributed to Steve Jobs concerning product design.

Oh people know very well what they want with MtG and they very well know what would make the different formats better. It just wouldn't be good for the company. There is a difference between not knowing if a green 2/3 crit is OP or isn't. And knowing that this format that is very popular, in place more popular then modern, is being choked to death because in order to build efficient decks it requires cards which WotC does not want to reprint.

Same with w40k. Should an ork be 5 or 6 pts is an almost esoteric question. which anwser changes based on the time in an edition the question is asked. But stuff like, the rules for terrain, LoS, scoring etc do not match the number of models being used in regular games of w40k is not. Everything else like AA or no AA, stratagems, how killy or interactive armies are, is just the outcome of the fact that we are playing a wargame size game with skirmish rules , which GW wants to fit in to a 2hour , easy to complet mode. The loops of def buffs, that follow the buffs to attk etc are remnant of that.

The only other big thing with how GW design their games is that somehow for them, the game exists on a free for all we play open or crusade tier and on I am ranking up to be a top 8 tournament player in the next 2 years.
They litteraly expect the people in the middle to use fixs that work for either of the two groups, when they do not. It even shows in their playtesters. It is either top tournament player or it is people who are in to historicals , "narrative" etc No space for normal people wanting to play a 2000pts.

I don't understand the Steve Jobs example. I mean w40k is a monopolist, but apple producsts are a main pick only in the US, because that is where Steve Jobs knew people that could help him achive the monopolist position. GW is a monopolist around the world. That is why some of the "fixs" the company proposes don't work for huge parts of the planet. I ain't saying the game should be the same everywhere , because local metas being different is a very interesting things. But some level of fixing rules has to be common . It can't be , just be nice chaps and talk it through, because then problems don't get fixed at all. And not everyone lives in places where there is 200-300 players in a 30km radius to fine a community just for you.

Yet as a Green Player, I strongly object to White (your mass attack causes no damage, in fact I get it as Life and that was 1 Mana) Blue (oh, you’re spending lots of Mana to summon a lynchpin? Tap two Islands and counter your creature).

The difficulty here is players mistaking an intentional limitation for a design error. This is why we used to see people upset that Tau suck in HTH and demanding Cc Battlesuits. Why people get ants in their pants about Double Turns in AoS etc.

To quote a long ago post on a long ago forum? Namely Portent (yes I’ve been bothering the internet in one form other for a long, long time)….

Dear GW.

Rock OP. Paper Fine

Yours

Scissors.

To answer the OP's question directly, and based on my experience (see the link in my sig), I think you're fine posting home brew rules. Just don't try to monetize it. Posting a link in a forum thread to some Google docs is a lot different from making a dedicated webpage for your project where your also generating revenue for ads (for example) or asking for patreaon support. In the later case you're leveraging GW's IP and a derivative work for your own financial gain (however small it might be).

On a different note - I'd love to hear what ideas you have. Make a post in the "Proposed Rules" sub-forum and share the link here.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


Dear GW.

Rock OP. Paper Fine

Yours

Scissors.

I don't think it is that simple. Faction bias is a thing, specialy if someone plays only one. And it is better to have a codex full of good options, then one which is full of bad ones. But in the end I think it only works like that regarding specific points or mechanics. The player base can be wrong about them. But when something like a dominant faction stacking minus to hit, makes half the armies invalid to play and everyone, or at least most people point it out. Designers from GW react to it after 9 to 12 months, or in next edition. And to releasing stuff to weak, they don't react at all, unless you are marins and get 2 books in an edition.
Design studios love to say that people don't know what they want, and should be happy with what they give them, because they are the experts. But it is them not the player creating the problems. Players are just adapting to the game rule set they create. And while no human created system can be perfect. There is a difference between our system is not perfect and our rules forced people to play a game of L shaped LoS blockers and bunkers.

 solkan wrote:

Karol wrote:

Nomeny 806446 11417883 wrote:There was this great video I watched recently where one of the directors producing Magic gave 20 points on game design; one of them was that players are great at identifying problems, but the opposite of great at providing fixes.

Well that is because for every company the first group that has to be made happy by any change is the share holders, then the company itself etc.

No. You're missing the point.

"The players are good at pointing out that there is a problem, but terrible at providing solutions" (or, to put it another way: The purpose of play testing is to identify problem areas, ignore any 'helpful' suggestions that the players make on how to fix the problem areas. Finding solutions to the problem that fit the product design is the designer's job.') is true for -every- game. Hell, there's a quote along similar lines attributed to Steve Jobs concerning product design.

There's a Simpsons episode from the early nineties highlighting that consumers don't know what they want and design should be left with designers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oh_Brother,_Where_Art_Thou%3F#:~:text=It%20originally%20aired%20on%20the,overpriced%20monstrosity%20that%20bankrupts%20him.

Karol wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


Dear GW.

Rock OP. Paper Fine

Yours

Scissors.

I don't think it is that simple. Faction bias is a thing, specialy if someone plays only one. And it is better to have a codex full of good options, then one which is full of bad ones. But in the end I think it only works like that regarding specific points or mechanics. The player base can be wrong about them. But when something like a dominant faction stacking minus to hit, makes half the armies invalid to play and everyone, or at least most people point it out. Designers from GW react to it after 9 to 12 months, or in next edition. And to releasing stuff to weak, they don't react at all, unless you are marins and get 2 books in an edition.
Design studios love to say that people don't know what they want, and should be happy with what they give them, because they are the experts. But it is them not the player creating the problems. Players are just adapting to the game rule set they create. And while no human created system can be perfect. There is a difference between our system is not perfect and our rules forced people to play a game of L shaped LoS blockers and bunkers.

no Karol it IS that simple, it's easy to spot problems but people tend to be pretty knee jerk about solutions.

But the problems are created by the company to benefit the company first and foremost. GW or WotC doesn't design their products to make their clients happy. They have to make the investors happy, then their bosses, then not get fired, then keep their position and do what ever internal politics of design studio are, and then they do the whole , we design games because it is our passion.

Plus there are problems and there are PROBLEMS. As I said initialy stuff like does an orc have to cost 5 or 6 pts base is a different kind of design problem then, we will make you buy 2+ boxs to play your faction and you will wait 2-3 years for an update which may not even be good. One may require a ton of testing, and hey we may even find out that at the size w40k is played a 5 pts ork is OP and a 6pts ork is bad. The other one is a desing problem selft created. The problem of how do we design something in a such a way that it doesn't fall apart instantly, but does so over time and is mildly+ inconviniet, so some people will buy more of our different stuff.

And some design errors are just clear as day even to someone not versed in design. Even the ex studio designers told it to be so. If you design a unit for X pts and then for it to sell better you cut the cost of all its upgrades, and it was was super efficient in the first place, you get stuff that ends up being over powered. And it isn't even a , we missed it, kind of a thing. It is a design choice the studio was informed, but still did it. To give examples playtesters informed GW that DE are going to be very strong comparing to the books that came out before it. GW did not only not react, but they made them test the rules with a weaker version of weapons etc.

I think you’ve misunderstood the point I was making.

Consumers tend to focus on what a product can’t do, rather than what it can. That is not to call anyone stupid etc, so you’ll have to hear this out.

Since day one, there have been people moaning that Tau suck in HTH, and demanding New Units to cover that. Those folk are confusing an Intentional Drawback to a Design Oversight. So adding in potent HTH units isn’t the solution, as it’s existing lack isn’t an error. The solution is adapting your tactics, strategy etc to mitigate the fact that as soon as the enemy gets paws and claws on you it’s likely curtains for that unit.

AoS has had Double Turn as part and parcel since it was released. Some folk struggle with it, some folk blame losses on it. But like the Tau example above? It’s still not a design error. GW knows it’s there. GW put it in there for a reason. If folk still can’t plan or adapt to that, that is not a failing of the rules.

And that’s what people are getting at. A Bad Workman Blames His Tools is a common version of it.

Now don’t get me wrong here. This post shouldn’t be taken as “therefore there are no problems”. Because there absolutely are. I’ve used two pieces of low hanging fruit to illustrate a point, and nothing more.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
AoS has had Double Turn as part and parcel since it was released. Some folk struggle with it, some folk blame losses on it. But like the Tau example above? It’s still not a design error. GW knows it’s there. GW put it in there for a reason. If folk still can’t plan or adapt to that, that is not a failing of the rules.

I guess that depends on how you define "design error". If you only mean literal accidents then no, it's not a design error. If you mean "this is such an egregiously stupid decision that no competent game designer would do it that way" then yes, things like this can be a design error. And a double turn in an IGOUGO system is arguably that level of bad decision, it's an immense swing in power when you get it and (AFAIK) there's no way to get it through player agency. You just get a RNG reward sometimes. And this absolutely can be considered a failing of the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Not quite true. Even though the word first appears in the 1952 short story "Robots of the world! Arise!" by Mari Wolf, Lucasfilm have still gone after companies who use it (despite only trademarking it in 2009...). Verizon had a line of Android phones called DROID, they had to pay Lucasfilm an undisclosed sum to use it.

Note that depending on the jurisdiction trademarks don't need to be explicitly registered to be defended as long as their use and ownership is clear. But in this case Lucasfilm trademarked "droid" back in 1977. In 2009, before Verizon launched their new product line, they filed for an expanded use of the term that covered phones. And IIRC Verizon never tested whether or not the expanded claim could be defended, they just negotiated a license instead of spending a bunch of money in court.

(And the 1952 use is irrelevant in this context. It would negate a copyright claim by Lucasfilm/Disney because Mari Wolf was the original creator of the term, but AFAIK she was not selling products under that name so it would not apply at all to a trademark dispute.)

For anybody interested, the thread is now up including core rules and the first few translated armies:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/806918.page#11432235

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I think you’ve misunderstood the point I was making.

Consumers tend to focus on what a product can’t do, rather than what it can. That is not to call anyone stupid etc, so you’ll have to hear this out.

Since day one, there have been people moaning that Tau suck in HTH, and demanding New Units to cover that. Those folk are confusing an Intentional Drawback to a Design Oversight. So adding in potent HTH units isn’t the solution, as it’s existing lack isn’t an error. The solution is adapting your tactics, strategy etc to mitigate the fact that as soon as the enemy gets paws and claws on you it’s likely curtains for that unit.

AoS has had Double Turn as part and parcel since it was released. Some folk struggle with it, some folk blame losses on it. But like the Tau example above? It’s still not a design error. GW knows it’s there. GW put it in there for a reason. If folk still can’t plan or adapt to that, that is not a failing of the rules.

And that’s what people are getting at. A Bad Workman Blames His Tools is a common version of it.

Now don’t get me wrong here. This post shouldn’t be taken as “therefore there are no problems”. Because there absolutely are. I’ve used two pieces of low hanging fruit to illustrate a point, and nothing more.

The problem with GW is that they create problems and make design choices, and then they write rules for armies that do not work. How does a knight player adapt to 9th ed, pre new codex, when his models get shot from behind cover, while he can't return fire, he can't score objectives, he can't take objectives or hold them. And then on top of that, unlike with other games, the wait time for a fix can be edition long. Sometimes it is longer then edition long. And even then a faction being fixed, fun or good to play can be a thing for like 2-3 months. 2-4 years of waiting for 2-3 months of fun, is not good design.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Since day one, there have been people moaning that Tau suck in HTH, and demanding New Units to cover that. Those folk are confusing an Intentional Drawback to a Design Oversight. So adding in potent HTH units isn’t the solution, as it’s existing lack isn’t an error. The solution is adapting your tactics, strategy etc to mitigate the fact that as soon as the enemy gets paws and claws on you it’s likely curtains for that unit.

Those people might exist, but if they do they're very few and can safely be ignored. And they're a very small drop in the ocean that's legitimate complaints about Tau gameplay design, so don't try to come off like people who criticize GW on those lines aren't right.

Just because you say "don't come at me" doesn't mean you're not wrongheaded in the thrust of your argument.

Tau having terrible close combat made them a skew list. And all skew lists (like knights) pose significant design challenges from a game theory standpoint.

They are generally seen as lazy or weak design principles. GW could never get Tau the way they actually wanted them to be: move, shoot, move (as they were on release). With kroot to provide some punch.

That vision never made it onto the tabletop in a complete way. Instead we got a completely static gun line with near infinite weapon ranges. Incredibly lazy and uninspired game design.

But this is ultimately because GW made Tau in order to cash in on the market share for Mecha nerds. Rules and 40K game theory always come second.

Hecaton wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Since day one, there have been people moaning that Tau suck in HTH, and demanding New Units to cover that. Those folk are confusing an Intentional Drawback to a Design Oversight. So adding in potent HTH units isn’t the solution, as it’s existing lack isn’t an error. The solution is adapting your tactics, strategy etc to mitigate the fact that as soon as the enemy gets paws and claws on you it’s likely curtains for that unit.

Those people might exist, but if they do they're very few and can safely be ignored. And they're a very small drop in the ocean that's legitimate complaints about Tau gameplay design, so don't try to come off like people who criticize GW on those lines aren't right.

Just because you say "don't come at me" doesn't mean you're not wrongheaded in the thrust of your argument.

Now that wasn’t my claim, was it? Demonstrating one complaint about one army is erroneous and baseless is not a statement of “therefore all complaints are erroneous and baseless”

Indeed I know very little about the modern game, so can’t express that sort of opinion.