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.

How do?

So we’ve all had time to digest and experiment with the Big FAQ. Now feelings on the exact changes, errata and clarifications aside, I want to empty my brain at you on why bother with Beta rules.

The way I see it, it boils down to the old parable of rules feedback, which goes thusly

It’s just a rough analogy wrote:Dear Rules Team.
Rock is overpowered, paper is just fine

Yours

Scissors

Churlish as it might seem, I feel it goes some way to showing how feedback can often be lopsided. See, we tend to speak up when we find something to our immediate disadvantage. And fairly often, it’s from a fairly narrow viewpoint.

Now, some elements of feedback are absolutely justified. Commissars keeping blob squads of cheap Conscripts kicking long after they should’ve been driven off. But others can (not are, just can) be down to sour grapes, or people being too rooted in their way to successfully adapt. That doesn’t mean they’re automatically wrong or unjustified, just that the feedback is inherently one sided.

To simply issue a blanket rules change can risk unintended consequences for other units. Consider how they dealt with Smite Spam. They’ve wound up dishing out exclusions and exceptions to specific armies which rely, unavoidably, upon Smite (Thousand Sons and Grey Knights). Their initial Beta Rule impacted those two armies far more than others. And the Beta nature allowed for further feedback.

In short, Beta rules turn games development from a list of decisions, to a discussion. Suggestions are made by the community. Potential fixes, based on those suggestions, are proposed and published. The community then gets a chance to feedback on how the proposed rules change actually pans out.

In theory, and it’s one yet to properly pan out (it’s still early days for this approach), this can help to settle the metaphorical pendulum.

Consider Close Combat in 3rd Ed 40k. Basically, it was King. Build your army right, and you could slam it across the board in cheap Transports at top speed (all too often boosted), bundle out into Close Combat, and via a combination of Sweeping Advances and Consolidation, never leave yourself as a target for shooting. Things of course have moved on. Again, I’m making no statement or judgement that all is fixed. But Close Combat is no longer the mindlessly sure thing it was back then.

Now the original changes there could be said to be knee jerk ones - intended to rein in Blood Angel Rhino Rush and other lists which abused a wonky system. Yet in doing so, it also affected armies which depend on HTH (Orks, Swarm Nids etc). And no tweaks were made until the next edition.

If those had been properly Beta ruled, the feedback spread out over what, 12 or so years, could be compacted and acted upon in a matter of months. It may not fully get there in the end of course, but it’s still a better approach than previous.

But it all hinges on feedback. Consider FW’s datasheets for the Custards. They invite feedback, but ask ‘please no theoryhammer’. They want raw data based on games played - because then they’re getting the impact of missions, terrain different and varying foes and army builds. And I hope that once we as a community are used to Beta rules, we can give them ever improving and useful feedback, and in return, expect more precise rules changes and wording.

This of course is just my view on things. Feel free to chime in with your own brain

Sounds great to me!

After years of all their decisions being made in a bubble they are finally reaching to the fans and getting feedback to make the game more fair. Naturally our response was "WOT! I NO PAY FOR INCOMPLETE RULES, PLAYTEST BETTER!"

I sincerely hope that all the negative blowback they are getting won't dissuade them from actually making positive and open changes to the system. I for one welcome this new GW for good and bad and hope we can actually work together to make a system we can all enjoy.

 generalchaos34 wrote:

I sincerely hope that all the negative blowback they are getting won't dissuade them from actually making positive and open changes to the system.

Let me know when you see the internet respond positively to change. I've been keeping watch for years, but have yet to spot it.

 LunarSol wrote:

 generalchaos34 wrote:

I sincerely hope that all the negative blowback they are getting won't dissuade them from actually making positive and open changes to the system.

Let me know when you see the internet respond positively to change. I've been keeping watch for years, but have yet to spot it.

True, but I'll still have hope, its all we have left. Also too many guardsman to paint.

Noise to signal may be awful, but there is still signal

I’m particularly enthused that they’re attending and taking note of the tournament scene.

Now put aside the competitive nature of those particular games, it’s still a chance for them to look for the stuff being fed back in action.

The ‘no longer in a bubble’ thing is a good comment to focus on. Previously, they may have failed to replicate the feedback themselves. After all, their resources are finite. But seeing games ‘in the wild’ allows for more efficient reviewing, because again they’re seeing the problem married to actual gaming experience, including terrain and missions. If they actually observe a problem playing out, and the impact it has on game outcomes, it’s easier to come up with tweaks and changes to tackle it.

It’s still a drawn out process - I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect a perfect fix in the first FAQ. But with Beta rules they can show their thinking, then study the impact.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Noise to signal may be awful, but there is still signal

I’m particularly enthused that they’re attending and taking note of the tournament scene.

Now put aside the competitive nature of those particular games, it’s still a chance for them to look for the stuff being fed back in action.

The ‘no longer in a bubble’ thing is a good comment to focus on. Previously, they may have failed to replicate the feedback themselves. After all, their resources are finite. But seeing games ‘in the wild’ allows for more efficient reviewing, because again they’re seeing the problem married to actual gaming experience, including terrain and missions. If they actually observe a problem playing out, and the impact it has on game outcomes, it’s easier to come up with tweaks and changes to tackle it.

It’s still a drawn out process - I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect a perfect fix in the first FAQ. But with Beta rules they can show their thinking, then study the impact.

Its almost like extremely complex problems that span the entire globe take time and energy to fix, and cannot be solved with a few hundred playtest games in Nottingham

Indeed.

And professionally speaking, it’s not uncommon for someone to be aware of a problem, but not necessarily get the root cause right.

With back and forthing via Beta rules, it can all be refined to get to the true root cause.

For instance, I hear Close Combat isn’t particularly great in 8th. So an issue has been identified. It may be that the entire phase needs to be re-worked. Or, it may be that certain units (I’m thinking elite HTH specialists myself) need a wee boost or special rule each to help them do the necessary damage.

The dialogue between end users and developers will help.

 LunarSol wrote:

 generalchaos34 wrote:

I sincerely hope that all the negative blowback they are getting won't dissuade them from actually making positive and open changes to the system.

Let me know when you see the internet respond positively to change. I've been keeping watch for years, but have yet to spot it.

The Malifaux 2.0 initial release and Open Beta was truly a magical time.
Prior to the release of Malifaux 2.0, Wyrd maintained Malifaux 1.5 as the official game. However they released all of the rules for 2.0, for all of the masters in the planned first wave. They created a separate section on their forums for play testing, and encouraged the community to experiment with the new rules and provide feedback.

Players would play their games, post battle reports and their impressions on whether various models were over or under performing. Miraculously, Wyrd actually took this feedback into consideration and consistently released new beta card sets incorporating changes for players to play test. The end result, the only 'unbalanced' master in the first release wave was the under powered Tara (who was not play tested because Leveticus was removed at the last moment due to issues finding a good balance for him). The actual release for Malifaux 2.0 was one of the finest balances in a miniature game I have ever experienced. This trend further pushed into their wave 2 release which followed a similar open beta playtesting period for the Masters not included in Wave 1.

Players were happy, they saw their feedback having a positive impact on a game they loved, and they were not surprised when the rules were released. If they didn't like the way something performed they could post a battlereports and analysis of why a unit was under performing... and it actually made a difference. Players were given a voice, and as a result Malifaux's transition from 1.5 to 2.0 was one of the most elegant and happy overall transitions between editions I have ever seen in a mini game.

Wyrd didn't actually start to slip until they started releasing new models and masters without open play testing. It lead to an overall weakening of the balance of their game, with the new masters beginning to power creep, such as Zip, Nellie or Sandeep being significantly better than other masters in their faction. When Malifaux began to lose its niche of being a finely balanced miniature game, it started to lose momentum. At least in my local area.

Although Wyrd would never admit it, I think the move away from open and extensive playtesting of new releases is what is disassociating the community from what is otherwise (and was once) one of the best games on the market.

 akaean wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 generalchaos34 wrote:

I sincerely hope that all the negative blowback they are getting won't dissuade them from actually making positive and open changes to the system.

Let me know when you see the internet respond positively to change. I've been keeping watch for years, but have yet to spot it.

The Malifaux 2.0 initial release and Open Beta was truly a magical time.
Prior to the release of Malifaux 2.0, Wyrd maintained Malifaux 1.5 as the official game. However they released all of the rules for 2.0, for all of the masters in the planned first wave. They created a separate section on their forums for play testing, and encouraged the community to experiment with the new rules and provide feedback.

Players would play their games, post battle reports and their impressions on whether various models were over or under performing. Miraculously, Wyrd actually took this feedback into consideration and consistently released new beta card sets incorporating changes for players to play test. The end result, the only 'unbalanced' master in the first release wave was the under powered Tara (who was not play tested because Leveticus was removed at the last moment due to issues finding a good balance for him). The actual release for Malifaux 2.0 was one of the finest balances in a miniature game I have ever experienced. This trend further pushed into their wave 2 release which followed a similar open beta playtesting period for the Masters not included in Wave 1.

Players were happy, they saw their feedback having a positive impact on a game they loved, and they were not surprised when the rules were released. If they didn't like the way something performed they could post a battlereports and analysis of why a unit was under performing... and it actually made a difference. Players were given a voice, and as a result Malifaux's transition from 1.5 to 2.0 was one of the most elegant and happy overall transitions between editions I have ever seen in a mini game.

Wyrd didn't actually start to slip until they started releasing new models and masters without open play testing. It lead to an overall weakening of the balance of their game, with the new masters beginning to power creep, such as Zip, Nellie or Sandeep being significantly better than other masters in their faction. When Malifaux began to lose its niche of being a finely balanced miniature game, it started to lose momentum. At least in my local area.

Although Wyrd would never admit it, I think the move away from open and extensive playtesting of new releases is what is disassociating the community from what is otherwise (and was once) one of the best games on the market.

Sounds like it was quite amazing! But also as a company I can see why they didnt want to do it too much. They were losing "control" of their property and if the players all knew what was coming there would be less of a "I gotta get this!" vibe associated with splash releases. Admit it or not we all have bought things not fully knowing what they were when it was announced and released in a short window. How this affects long term sales I do not know but the majority of the business world these days seems obsessed with short term sales only (I blame the instant feedback of the digital age).

I do enjoy how not only Warhammer has slipped out of the bubble and so has Xwing (not that they were awful to start) the new X-Wing will NOT have points printed on the cards and the points have been doubled. All points will be posted on their website or through their list building app. They are doing this so ships and upgrades have more room for adjustment and they can change the values at will without waiting for a print book (a more fast paced and free version of Chapter Approved I would say, and very needed after the U-Boat issues from the last few years). Frankly I think a doubling of points would do well for 40k in general, especially when it comes to assigning better value for units like Infantry Squads, Kabalites, and Firewarriors who seem criminally undercosted at the moment.

The rules changes, beta rules, etc... are nice but dang is it messy right now. This is not a clean way to do a living ruleset. So, full points for effort, execution of it needs a better delivery system. Maybe, like x wing is going, the official list builder will help.

Well the other problem too is that some of us hate the rule so much we aren't really interested in testing it.

Just because there's always someone who is upset, doesn't mean you can draw an equivalence between all scenarios where people are upset. This beta deep strike rule is indeed a bad change.