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.

The Kickstarter page lists Shockwork Studio as Portland, OR. Is that correct? Is there someone here locally?

 MLaw wrote:
My thought was that the smaller arms would be for more subtle manipulation like opening doors or operating machinery while larger arms would be for melee or heavy lifting.

Considering cyborgs (being generic general here using GitS as reference) or even just cybernetic arms are able to lift and throw cars like they are cotton candy, having large arms don't really add a value at least to a remote unit. The only real difference between a small arm and a large arm is the amount of strength behind it, but there really isn't a big benefit to having more strength than what would be in the smaller arms/hands. They can already punch a hole through a wall, armor, manipulate and hold small weapons while having on par strength.

The only real reason to add arms is the rule of cool or for someone to utilize the model to represent a different model, for other games. If there was an actual pilot inside then there are other reasons on why that would be beneficial than tank sized weapons and turrets. It is one thing to say they can swap weapons easier without a hard point but that only makes sense if they have giant rifle sized weapons designed. If mechs with hands are the only one that can use those weapons, it makes them less suitable to a mobile unit with different types of mecha because its only useable by one variant. Hardpoints can be complicated or as easy as release and pop in a replacement, with the as the same speed as it would take to pick up a weapon.

However I'm making assumptions based on what they've shown for the world and background so far and using some other references to relate to it.

Big arms can pick up bigger stuff with more reach. Want to throw a car? Hard to do if you have toddler arms.

Looks better can do with some more improving.

Definitely the add on need to go under the goals and fluff and maybe be compacted a bit.

115$ reward doesn't include Zadruga, you would have to pledge for 170$ to get everything from the KS.

I'll work on it more tomorrow.

Dark Severance you pretty much summed it up. Ulysses is like a walking tank, packed with heavy weapons and layers of armor. It's a fire support platform for the rest of the army. Bushmaster variant, with it's arms, can use terminals, open doors, operate switches. This is very important in scoring Objectives, and at the same time very unique for a Mech of this class (Ulysses is a Medium Mech).

We have more "crazy", almost scrap build mech and bots for other armies of BlackRain, but it will have to wait until we develop the game a little. BlackRain has it's other side, with more post apocaliptic (a little) and "gangsta" look. It is based on North-South (Earth's Hemispheres) conflicts. We'll tackle that topic at some other time.

Thanks for the comments (I'll look into that PsychoticStorm, thanks). If you'll notice anything strange, or hard to understand, let us know.

Dark Severance - Yeah, that's what I was saying before though.. The smaller arms are like T-Rex arms.. they're great for stuff in front but actual larger arms have more versatility.

In actual sci-fi settings.. where continuity has to be considered (why I was talking about campaigns and RPGs) hardpoints are a very important consideration. If you've ever played Battletech or anything where Hardpoints were a PITA to change, having hotswappable hardpoints is a HUGE advantage. Having nice big, long-reaching arms with some bulk means if you want to pick up a rail gun that would normally be mounted on a ship.. you can. If it runs out of ammo, you can drop it and pick up a girder and smack your enemy around with that. If those hardpoints are just missile launchers then when your missiles are out, you're done.

So.. no.. the only real reason is NOT the rule of cool.. As John Hwang DD mentions.. the reach on those T-Rex arms doesn't allow for effective melee, throwing, reaching, climbing, or even to help the mech get up if it's knocked on it's back. They are restricted only to the front arc. Longer arms can reach down, lift the mech up, pull the mech onto higher surfaces, shield the front of the mech from various attacks, swing and throw large objects in an arc that would allow for effective close combat, and in a pinch could provide as a platform for a bunch of infantry to hang on if they need an emergency ride.

I've watched a ton of anime, played a lot of Mechwarrior based games, and just been interested in this type of stuff for 30+ years.. I've seen a lot of things and always thought the dual role arms were neat. There happens to be a real world example of how it works out.. Submersibles have manipulation arms and load bearing arms when they're made for deep sea recovery. Can't remember where the article was but I always really really like the idea.

Anyway.. sorry my suggestion started a bit of a debate. I'll be taking a look at those rules here shortly.

 MLaw wrote:
If those hardpoints are just missile launchers then when your missiles are out, you're done.

That's why missile units need LOTS of missiles.

And it doesn't hurt to add a fethton of missiles to a regular unit...

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 MLaw wrote:
If those hardpoints are just missile launchers then when your missiles are out, you're done.

That's why missile units need LOTS of missiles.

And it doesn't hurt to add a fethton of missiles to a regular unit...

Spoiler:

lol, yeah.. if Mechwarrior Online has taught me anything it's that however many missiles you think is enough.. 10x that is still not quite enough. I can't tell you how many times I've blown through my entire salvo and had to fight using the small lasers on my torso hardpoints... or had one of my launchers blown off (or both on a catapult) and been reduced to a derp-a-tron. Ammo detonations are the worst though.


Shockwave - I'm already into the rules and there's definitely need for some heavy proofreading. There's lots of errors in grammar and spelling and a few places where the wording is iffy. I understand the intent in those places (so far) but clarity is definitely not optimized.
EDIT: Also.. I'm not an alcoholic or anything but using Captain Morgan as your example in that one spot has made me thirsty

 MLaw wrote:
If you've ever played Battletech or anything where Hardpoints were a PITA to change, having hotswappable hardpoints is a HUGE advantage.

Battletech didn't have hardpoints. Yes you can customize a mech, but that isn't what the Lore supported. That was why swapping out weapons took weeks to do because it required a partial rebuild. Actual hardpoints weren't introduced until Clan omnipods, where swapping out weapons was a snap and click. To be fair the main reason was because it was all Lostech until much later, it wasn't a cyberpunk type genre but Battletech is a poor example to use in this situation.

I'll admit I can understand about the TRex arms.

 MLaw wrote:
sorry my suggestion started a bit of a debate.

Naw it isn't really a debate, there isn't a wrong or right answer. It is just a discussion about difference of opinions.

I personally just don't want to see them do something to make something 'more like' something that already exists. I like what they have, where each unit is specialized and has their strengths and weaknesses as drones. They are intermixable but when you start adding arms, suddenly it changes the dynamic nature of the mecha, designs. Now they start losing their unique flavor they have and become more of other things. Not to mention If you have one with arms and using large rifles, weapons because of versatility then why have the other versions.

 Dark Severance wrote:

 MLaw wrote:
If you've ever played Battletech or anything where Hardpoints were a PITA to change, having hotswappable hardpoints is a HUGE advantage.

Battletech didn't have hardpoints. Yes you can customize a mech, but that isn't what the Lore supported. That was why swapping out weapons took weeks to do because it required a partial rebuild. Actual hardpoints weren't introduced until Clan omnipods, where swapping out weapons was a snap and click. To be fair the main reason was because it was all Lostech until much later, it wasn't a cyberpunk type genre but Battletech is a poor example to use in this situation.

I'll admit I can understand about the TRex arms.

 MLaw wrote:
sorry my suggestion started a bit of a debate.

Naw it isn't really a debate, there isn't a wrong or right answer. It is just a discussion about difference of opinions.

I personally just don't want to see them do something to make something 'more like' something that already exists. I like what they have, where each unit is specialized and has their strengths and weaknesses as drones. They are intermixable but when you start adding arms, suddenly it changes the dynamic nature of the mecha, designs. Now they start losing their unique flavor they have and become more of other things. Not to mention If you have one with arms and using large rifles, weapons because of versatility then why have the other versions.

Points taken.
Having a versatile (arms) option vs having specialized loadouts is the difference between a specialist and a jack of all trades. If you're toting a missile launcher with arms.. you probably don't have that much ammo and your systems are geared to support the arms and higher level manipulation and load bearing so targeting systems aren't dedicated to indirect flight path and trajectory prediction algorithms (so less accurate). If the unit is intended to be rear line fire support through indirect fire, then the trade off would be acceptable. If you have a variable role mission and sidewinders are meant to provide dynamic support for a shifting front, then at a moment's notice they could be on the front-line or the nature of their mission could change..so versatility would be desirable. This scenario is similar for any payload type ammunition or anything where you have ammo to tote around period.

Energy weapons on the other hand are a different situation.. Different weight requirements, heat dispersion, energy drain, and linear line of sight requirements..



Anyway.. on to the actual rules..

I see rules for mechanized infantry but I do not see the sidewinder's card. Is this an oversight?
My book ends at Tactical Points.. the page just stops after the heading.
As a suggestion.. a quickplay sheet would be supremely helpful to introduce the most basic concepts. Strip out the more detailed ideas and add them in.. build on it. I'll try to give this a go as it is but it's pretty stretched out. There's lots of rules about how to do things, but it's presented so far from the other ideas that the sections just read like nebulous rules. How are they meant to work together? The Beginning The Game (there's a typo in the pdf for the title, you've got it as Beggining The Game) has a LOT of stuff in it and really needs to be tightened up as far as organization. How do you win the game? I don't see this.. but I could've missed it.

In short.. organization.. that's the biggest issue to me. You seem to have most of what you need here in the book (I think) it just needs tidying up and an example of how one plays and wins.

Hope that was helpful (and that it's okay for me to post this here in this thread)


EDIT: I did find the section on a summary of game play..it's at the very beginning. I had read it but the VP section somehow eluded me. It's still not very detailed in that regard. There's a lot of other things I'm seeing but I feel like going through a full on list in this thread might not be appropriate to the nature of the thread..

@MLaw - as you've looked through the rules in some detail, if you were to sit down with a newbie, do you think you could get them playing within a half hour?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
@MLaw - as you've looked through the rules in some detail, if you were to sit down with a newbie, do you think you could get them playing within a half hour?

Negative ghost rider.. The current level of organization has me unable to get myself going in a half-hour.
I'm throwing it over to my tablet so I can read over it more tonight but the formatting, huge graphics, wordy descriptions for stuff, and having to try to hunt down critical gameplay concepts without bookmarks caused me to have to step back and look at it from an editorial standpoint.
Also, it requires the use of a mission deck according to the summary which is not provided. There is an assortment of unit cards but those need to be seriously trimmed down. I think the font on all of this stuff is more than a bit oversized so it causes things that should only take up a paragraph or two to occupy an entire section. With the columnar formatting this means the 80 page rulebook should be closer to maybe 20 or 30 pages if I had to take a wild guess.

My takeaways.. D10 based. IGOUGO but on a unit level.. determined by a d10. Strategic goals (mission based) are the way to earn VPs.. so if you don't have a kill-based goal combat is highly optional. There is a lot of granularity and some of the structure strikes me closer to a light rpg feel. Army building is.. very..very confusing.. costing hexes and.. I .. yeah.. that part lost me. Model height actually impacts gameplay but it looks like it's standardized based on height classification.. so conversions are not going to hurt the models gameplay. LOS does use bases but is also factored by size. Modifiers.. holy.. crap.. there are so many modifiers. Dropship insertion is a thing but I don't see dropship rules so I assume it's just a method for entry (though you can botch the drop). Units have coherency rules.. it's spread out really far..so don't ask me what they are. Fireteams and coherency and some huge diagrams.. that's all I got out of that part. Templates are kinda like old school 40k but with added crits. Scatter sucks in this.. if your shot misses the opponent gets to move the scattered shot.. srsly??? When you get into the armory that's where the modifiers go into high gear.. There's like 3 or four pages of ammo types that all have different effects. There's psychology but the section on that is also in the section that describes how to start playing the game so .. I dunno.. MOvement.. basically = modifiers. I think movement is interesting because it does take into consideration "how" you're moving so that's cool but more modifiers.. There's where we get into some crazy special move type stuff that seems very very RPGish. It honestly reminds me a bit of Warmachine but more involved. Then you get into a basic action phase, a ranged combat phase, cover which is more modifiers, melee, and then.. the section that caught me a bit off guard.. Classes. It's not very long and doesn't actually clarify what they are. Then we have damage (10s are crit fails and 1s are crit hits or damage according to the book...???).
Next up is armor saves and energy field saves, stealth, more armor and field saves, a section on mechanized infantry (the sidewinder but no stats), more classes (???), and Tactical points. Tactical points are perks you get from doing stuff. In Shadowrun they would be like Karma points kinda... but they give advantages.. so maybe closer to Sisters of Battle Faith Points.. or Black Ops 3 Streak Rewards..


I know that was long but I wanted to try to break it down and help myself and others see the structure (for better and worse). It's very RPish. I haven't picked up Infinity so I can't draw comparisons.

@MLaw - First, thank you very much for your capsule summary. That was more than enough information for me to recognize that this is very likely not the game for me.

Second, ouch. This reads more like a RPG review than a TTWG brief, which is not so good when the industry is moving to lightweight gaming. That's why I asked whether one could get started in a half hour. Or even an hour.
____

@Shockwork - the ability to quickstart a game is pretty critical, because that basically determines how easily you can get new blood into the game. If the minis are nice enough, people will want to play. So rules and setup needs to be streamlined and structured to get a basic game going within minutes, not hours. Consider how easy it is to start playing 40k or Flames of War or X-Wing...

 Dark Severance wrote:
The Kickstarter page lists Shockwork Studio as Portland, OR. Is that correct? Is there someone here locally?

I am local Dark Severance. PM me your number we could set something up.

 MLaw wrote:
If those hardpoints are just missile launchers then when your missiles are out, you're done.

Unless your Commander spends Tactical Points to Drop in an Ammo Dump allowing {X} models to resupply weapons with “Limited Ammo”

 MLaw wrote:
In short.. organization.. that's the biggest issue to me. You seem to have most of what you need here in the book (I think) it just needs tidying up and an example of how one plays and wins. Hope that was helpful (and that it's okay for me to post this here in this thread)

No please do MLaw… I’m into feedback from you guys. It’s the only way to get proper refinement this needs. There is a light RPG feel I think once things are tightened up a little you guys will be surprised with game play.
I’m planning on designing a more inclusive cheat sheet, besides a Modifiers summary what else would you like to see on it?
Some of the content is missing and I know it’s frustrating but we’ll have the cards and tokens finished soon.

 MLaw wrote:
IGOUGO but on a unit level.. determined by a d10

I’d like to mention The Tactical Point Abilities Overwatch and Return Fire allow you to react to your opponent. Things like Overwatch Backpedal and Overwatch Waylayer allow for options other than firing.
With Backpedal you can move away from the Enemy and Waylayer allows you to interrupt their turn with a Melee Charge. So when played many unexpected things can happen if you spend the TP (Tactical Points)

 MLaw wrote:
Scatter sucks in this.. if your shot misses the opponent gets to move the scattered shot.. srsly???

I know it seems weird but imagine when it’s not you on the receiving end but your opponent and he misses by 8. It can get a little crazy. I think it’s fun.

@MLaw I really appreciate the Input. We should talk more. I’d like to see what you think after having the rules for a few days as you actually seem to really be reading the rules which is why we have them in your guys hands

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
@MLaw - First, thank you very much for your capsule summary. That was more than enough information for me to recognize that this is very likely not the game for me.

Second, ouch. This reads more like a RPG review than a TTWG brief, which is not so good when the industry is moving to lightweight gaming. That's why I asked whether one could get started in a half hour. Or even an hour.
____

@Shockwork - the ability to quickstart a game is pretty critical, because that basically determines how easily you can get new blood into the game. If the minis are nice enough, people will want to play. So rules and setup needs to be streamlined and structured to get a basic game going within minutes, not hours. Consider how easy it is to start playing 40k or Flames of War or X-Wing...

@JohnHwangDD- I wouldn’t be so disheartened any new game system has a bit of a learning curve. It does have a few modifiers. but your also not using huge armies. This is why we have such an early preview.
Even things like the Echelon System and recruiting your force is very different from the norm. I’ll get into that at a later point.

Shockwave - No problem but I think the philosophy behind the presentation of the book is the root of the problem. I don't know that there really was one.. it just seems like things were tossed in as the were written.
Organizing it so that you start off explaining what the game is.. Maybe something like a battle report but watered down a little. As that progresses, introduce key concepts including unit cards. Then start getting under the hood. The early stuff needs to be the lightest to process mentally.

As for cheat sheet. The old 40k sheets were GOLD. I learned most of the game from those and most of the time people had them on standby back in the day. This system is perhaps a little more complicated than 3rd and 4th ed 40k though.. so aspects of a D&D DMs screen also seem a bit necessary.

In short.. it should have an overview of the turn. Modifier charts, important page numbers (obviously this will not be possible until the organization is tightened up). The more tricky aspects of combat. Tactical points overview, ranges for things. I would honestly have the mission be by roll on a chart so people don't have to tote around a mission deck. You could release expansions later with different mission configurations.

The stuff you just posted.. the reaction stuff. That should have a subheading or something. People need to have clear cut rules for how out of sequence activations like overwatch or reactions unfold. I've played games with similar functions and if the rules are not clear it's a disaster. I can't even remember what system the one encounter was but we both had a load of units on overwatch.. and all these units started firing.. mine reacting to his and his to mine.. and.. we had NO CLUE how that all resolved so basically we just said it's all inclusive and basically all the wounds were resolved at the same time meaning very few models were left on the field after that bloodbath.
I'm not suggesting you go inclusive on resolving reactions for simultaneous removal.. just that.. if you DO it needs to be extremely explicit. Same for if there's a sequence to resolving reaction order.

I have a lot of ideas and a lot of feedback but I think maybe people who are in the thread for just the news might prefer we take this to e-mail or PMs. If you want, shoot me a PM and I'll give you my e-mail and we can talk that way.

It sounds like pretty involved gameplay that will require having a few cheat sheets on hand. Shockwork, I'm curious if it's possible to produce a cut down, bare-bones quickstart set of rules? Basically, leave out all of the more complicated things like variant ammunitions, special deployments, etc. Something that you could fit onto one, maybe two pages and allow new players to easily grasp the basic gameplay rules before they start adding in the fun stuff.

The rules sound more like a single model skirmish than a squad based skirmish.

And even for that maybe a bit more detailed than needed, I cannot know for sure though.

Rule are Shane's thing, but I'll comment on that a little as I'm helping hi anyway.

1. Modifiers, cheat sheets. You won't really need much for that. Everything you need is on the card: different ammo types for a weapon? It's listed on the card, so you just use the profile with that ammo, without looking how much POW does hollow point ammo have.

2. Quick Start Rules. That's a standard now, so of course we'll have it. I want to do something more than that: Tutorial Missions. Lesson by lesson, teaching all of the gameplay mechanics, by slowly adding more gameplay elements.

3. Rulebook. Yeah, it is messy, but that's why it is called alpha It is for looking at the basics, see how that plays. With another round of tests we'll add more cards, 2d map play mechanics, etc. But right now Shane will have to polish the basics.

Thanks for the feedback!

Look at Operation Icestorm for a great example of tutorial quickstarter rules introduction.

Can you guys show some comparison pictures to other companies miniatures? The ones on the first page are too small and blurry to actually see anything.

I like your overall design and wouldn't mind grabbing few miniatures and add ons like helmets to add them to my infinity collection.

 ShockworkStudio_Michael wrote:
Rule are Shane's thing, but I'll comment on that a little as I'm helping hi anyway.

1. Modifiers, cheat sheets. You won't really need much for that. Everything you need is on the card: different ammo types for a weapon? It's listed on the card, so you just use the profile with that ammo, without looking how much POW does hollow point ammo have.

2. Quick Start Rules. That's a standard now, so of course we'll have it. I want to do something more than that: Tutorial Missions. Lesson by lesson, teaching all of the gameplay mechanics, by slowly adding more gameplay elements.

3. Rulebook. Yeah, it is messy, but that's why it is called alpha It is for looking at the basics, see how that plays. With another round of tests we'll add more cards, 2d map play mechanics, etc. But right now Shane will have to polish the basics.

Thanks for the feedback!

lol, first you guys are like "feedback good" now, after I spent hours of my life reviewing your game it's "eh.. you're pretty much wrong about everything". I'm just trying to tell you.. I can't learn to play your game from that alpha document. Have fun with your project.. I'm thinking I'll be elsewhere.

 ShockworkStudio_Shane wrote:
@MLaw I really appreciate the Input. We should talk more. I’d like to see what you think after having the rules for a few days as you actually seem to really be reading the rules which is why we have them in your guys hands

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
@MLaw - First, thank you very much for your capsule summary. That was more than enough information for me to recognize that this is very likely not the game for me.

Second, ouch. This reads more like a RPG review than a TTWG brief, which is not so good when the industry is moving to lightweight gaming. That's why I asked whether one could get started in a half hour. Or even an hour.
____

@Shockwork - the ability to quickstart a game is pretty critical, because that basically determines how easily you can get new blood into the game. If the minis are nice enough, people will want to play. So rules and setup needs to be streamlined and structured to get a basic game going within minutes, not hours. Consider how easy it is to start playing 40k or Flames of War or X-Wing...

@JohnHwangDD- I wouldn’t be so disheartened any new game system has a bit of a learning curve. It does have a few modifiers. but your also not using huge armies. This is why we have such an early preview.
Even things like the Echelon System and recruiting your force is very different from the norm. I’ll get into that at a later point.

See, that's the problem in a nutshell. It shouldn't take "a few days" for an experienced wargamer to wrap their head around a game system. The guts of a game system should be understandable within an hour. Your game is supposed to be small and fast. That means you should be looking at a quick, light rules system with fast, simple resolution. If it takes more time than DnD 5E, then you've basically failed. 20 years ago, I might have had the patience to unravel a complex RPG-like game. But now? No way. I'm not "investing" hours of time to try and figure out how to play a game when I can pull a variety of games off the shelf and get rolling in under an hour.

How you choose to do this is up to you. As you're going into production, I recommend custom d6 dice a la Super Dungeon Explore. Not something akin to early BattleTech or Heavy Gear Tactics.

MLaw Of course everything you just said is taken seriously. Thank you for your time and feedback. We'll try to get the next book better so you could actually enjoy it. I didn't say anywhere there that ou are wrong, I see your point, we are working on it.

We are sitting on this with Shane right now, trying to get this game be better.

Come down to the game design subforum, we have plenty of discussion about such things there with many approaches and people interested might give a helping hand.

 ShockworkStudio_Michael wrote:
MLaw Of course everything you just said is taken seriously. Thank you for your time and feedback. We'll try to get the next book better so you could actually enjoy it. I didn't say anywhere there that ou are wrong, I see your point, we are working on it.

We are sitting on this with Shane right now, trying to get this game be better.

Have you guys played test games with your rules?
Just so we're clear.. I'm not saying I'm 100% right but the point was to have a discussion about the state of the alpha document and your replies were not conducive to that in the slightest.
If you do take PsychoticStorm up on his offer to start a thread in the design subforum please link here. If constructive dialog is able to happen, I will help if able.

I'm agreed with PsychoticStorm - if you really want rules review and analysis, the Dakka Design forum is a better place to do that.

I can tell you that my biases lean very strongly toward streamlined and simplified, and can probably advise if that's the direction you want to go. The problem is that it seems that your current design is very far on the other side of the complexity spectrum, so there would be a lot of "editing" (i.e. cutting) required to bring it in line with the sort of game that I would prefer to play.

 MLaw wrote:
Have you guys played test games with your rules?

To be fair that is the point of having Alpha Tests and why testing groups outside of the design circle is important. The main reason is because what doesn't make sense to you, makes sense to them because they wrote it. Even if they are poorly written, they are able to fill in the gaps because they know the game. That is how often rules get released that seem like they haven't been tested because "new people" have different perspectives and understandings. They are often able to point out where there is a disconnect or a places that need clarification. It is also how game groups get stuck into thinking they have "streamlined and easy rules" but when they pass it out, it is more complicated than they think to a new person.

As an example it is often the difference between giving directions to someone's house. Someone local is who drives it everyday in most situations is most likely to say, "Drive up Powell until you see Fred Meyer's, making a left at the light." vs "Take Powell eastbound for 2 miles, making a left at the light." or even "Make a left onto E Powell traveling eastbound for 2 miles. You will have had driven through 2 stoplights and at the 3rd stoplight we will be making a left".

All of them are easy to follow for me being local and used to doing it over and over. Someone who hasn't been in the area or knows the area or out of town, might not even know what Fred Meyer's is or won't notice it on the left, until after they have passed it. Another person might not be paying close attention to miles and have passed it. I know not the best example but you get the idea.

 Dark Severance wrote:

 MLaw wrote:
Have you guys played test games with your rules?

To be fair that is the point of having Alpha Tests and why testing groups outside of the design circle is important. The main reason is because what doesn't make sense to you, makes sense to them because they wrote it. Even if they are poorly written, they are able to fill in the gaps because they know the game. That is how often rules get released that seem like they haven't been tested because "new people" have different perspectives and understandings. They are often able to point out where there is a disconnect or a places that need clarification. It is also how game groups get stuck into thinking they have "streamlined and easy rules" but when they pass it out, it is more complicated than they think to a new person.

Totally agreed. It is entirely possible (likely) that the first draft was even more complicated and convoluted.

Although, there is a certain complexity limit tied to page count. If one's rules are only a few pages, there is something of a limit to how complicated the game can possibly be, simply due to the brevity of the ruleset. For example, consider a 1-page ruleset like what you'd have for Chess, Backgammon and/or Go. The rules are relatively compact, and that allows someone to start playing rather quickly. That doesn't mean they will play well - I'd love to play cash Backgammon against a newbie... But it does mean that the smaller volume of rules is something that they can absorb in a relatively short amount of time. It's the reason why my KOG light and GW's Age of Sigmar were designed as 4-page rulesets.

Being able to streamline the rules down to the core is a good thing, because it helps clarify what's really important in a ruleset. To that end, getting the quickstart rules together should be a priority. And then have a clean version of the quickstart be the final, official ruleset.

Guys.. I get that.. I do.. but if you read them.. it doesn't even make sense. I legitimately think they wrote down arbitrary rules and haven't actually had ANYONE play through them..

I have quite a few of my own rule sets over the years trashed by my local community, I learned the hard way that beyond any bias the play testers may have, that writing a rules set is completely and entirely different from writing normally.

One can have played the game tested it and still deliver a text that is bad as far as a rules textbooks go, because it is written normally.

The fact that the (pre-?) alpha rules are 80 pages, with 3-4 pages of ammo types and d10s was enough for me to say "no". Even if it formats down to 20-30 pages, that's still double what I want to play. If they can get it down to a dozen pages of 2-column 12-point text, I might reconsider.