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.
I don't know about you but I find GW's idea of adding beta rules into White Dwarf to be a really terrible idea for several reasons:
It adds to the "bulk" of books to bring
They are mostly untested and could be really overpowered vs existing model cost (that Bolter one for example is a massive boost)
It can cause friction in games
The latter point being for example where you are playing at a club, you want to play your new beta rule because it's a huge advantage and your opponent doesn't. It's a good way to cause friction in a game where the rules should be a constant.
Don't get me wrong, beta missions and scenarios wouldn't be so bad, but look at some of the major impacts previous rules have had / are having:
Deepstriking was heavily nerfed
Spamming units was nerfed
Fly units were nerfed
Ultimately, the above have arguably helped to balance the game, but at the same time demonstrated how such beta rules can have a major impact
Ongoing design that aims to balance things out is a good thing in almost all frameworks, doubly so in a GW game. As long as they stick with a couple of beta rules at a time, they are not a burden on anyone. Just as it is with the FAQs, you have access to all these things via the internet or you can print a page or two of those relevant to you to bring along. It's 21st century, after all.
If your opponent doesn't want them, ask why. Are they tired and just want their escapism without any further thought that day? Do they powerplay and want their cheese left alone as long as they can? No, beta rules are a good thing.
From a game-design perspective, they are a good idea.
Even if they weren't, if they'd get people to have a short pre-game chat at their club or store and communicate on what kind of game they wanna play, that alone would've made em worth it.
Not sure how a White Dwarf realistically adds to the "book burden" either. The last roughly 500 games I played against people bringing a FW unit (including at large tournaments), I don't think a single person actually had a FW index book for rules reference along for the game. It was all just Battlescribe or maybe a fishy print-out, if you're lucky.
I thinn the beta rules are quite nice. Way better than CA that actually adds to the book burden. The beta rules have been available online for free and also limited i scope, so they have been easy to remember
Do you remember when GW came up with these fantastic new flyer rules that were now mandatory. (go the buy to book you consumer pig) In it there were 3-5 pages of rules... and a new phase... I like Beta rules.
I'm both orderly and rational. I value control, information, and order. I love structure and hierarchy, and will actively use whatever power or knowledge I have to maintain it. At best, I am lawful and insightful; at worst, I am bureaucratic and tyrannical.
It's great that GW is actively trying to improve the game for the better.
I don't think game design should hinge on player feedback however. There is way too much whining, poor understanding, and faction bias that basically goes into 9 out of 10 posts made by players. I expect the designers of the game to be more competent in making such decisions than the players.
On the flipside, if they are asking the RIGHT players like Nick N, etc, or just using it as a chance to view how the game plays like that for themselves, than all the more power to beta rules. I just don't want people like some of the posters on here to be having any influence whatsoever on the outcome of rules because it can only be for the worse in comparison to the design team making that call themselves, assuming they are skilled at their job, which one would hope.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/02/01 08:32:32
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
I have to join the wave of posters disagreeing with you here, OP. Testing something prior to its official release is a great idea and not just for rules but for literally almost any product one can imagine: software & games, food, technology, medicines, services. Heck, come to think of it, even films and TV shows have pilots and test screenings, so even literal plot is not immune to testing.
As for whether or not beta testing is as valuable as focus testing, well from my experience with software development, I can tell you it's invaluable. Experienced testers find the bugs they expect to find, but only customers can find the really nasty gak.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/01 09:10:14
Not sure how a White Dwarf realistically adds to the "book burden" either. The last roughly 500 games I played against people bringing a FW unit (including at large tournaments), I don't think a single person actually had a FW index book for rules reference along for the game. It was all just Battlescribe or maybe a fishy print-out, if you're lucky.
You don't have rules with you, you won't play vs me. No battlescribe is not enough. Too much errors there and top of that it's not like they are closed where only select few can alter them. If you disagree have fun playing with my unit that shoots heavy 20 S10 -4 D6 shots. Honest! Look at this battlescribe print!
Not sure how a White Dwarf realistically adds to the "book burden" either. The last roughly 500 games I played against people bringing a FW unit (including at large tournaments), I don't think a single person actually had a FW index book for rules reference along for the game. It was all just Battlescribe or maybe a fishy print-out, if you're lucky.
You don't have rules with you, you won't play vs me. No battlescribe is not enough. Too much errors there and top of that it's not like they are closed where only select few can alter them. If you disagree have fun playing with my unit that shoots heavy 20 S10 -4 D6 shots. Honest! Look at this battlescribe print!
Not sure how a White Dwarf realistically adds to the "book burden" either. The last roughly 500 games I played against people bringing a FW unit (including at large tournaments), I don't think a single person actually had a FW index book for rules reference along for the game. It was all just Battlescribe or maybe a fishy print-out, if you're lucky.
You don't have rules with you, you won't play vs me. No battlescribe is not enough. Too much errors there and top of that it's not like they are closed where only select few can alter them. If you disagree have fun playing with my unit that shoots heavy 20 S10 -4 D6 shots. Honest! Look at this battlescribe print!
I'm inclined to agree re: battlescribe, but thankfully smartphones and portable document formats are a thing.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/01 09:20:32
Not sure how a White Dwarf realistically adds to the "book burden" either. The last roughly 500 games I played against people bringing a FW unit (including at large tournaments), I don't think a single person actually had a FW index book for rules reference along for the game. It was all just Battlescribe or maybe a fishy print-out, if you're lucky.
You don't have rules with you, you won't play vs me. No battlescribe is not enough. Too much errors there and top of that it's not like they are closed where only select few can alter them. If you disagree have fun playing with my unit that shoots heavy 20 S10 -4 D6 shots. Honest! Look at this battlescribe print!
I think it's (mostly) a bad idea in the sense that GW should have tested their rules changes and then released them as "official errata", rather than "perhaps/perhaps not optional rules".
For something much bigger like the sisters of battle codex I can kind of see the point, GW have rather lost direction with the faction and need all the help they can get at this point.
But for individual rules. Test them in-house and change them. And if they don't pan out then change them again, but commit to the changes.
I think stuff like beta rules and beta test, have lost their meaning. Right now beta testing or beta rules don't mean we are checking of the stuff works or doesn't work, but more like this if the final version deal with it, we just don't want to make it official or final, because then, in case of w40k, you may stop buying the books we print.
It is the best visible in how people play the game. Trying to make someone play without the beta rules is impossible, unless they happen to play an army which was invalidated by the changes. But those people either leave the game, because their only opponents could be armies with same problems, or they got a different army, and why bother with something that doesn't work when you have an army which is perfectly fine.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
A.T. wrote: I think it's (mostly) a bad idea in the sense that GW should have tested their rules changes and then released them as "official errata", rather than "perhaps/perhaps not optional rules".
For something much bigger like the sisters of battle codex I can kind of see the point, GW have rather lost direction with the faction and need all the help they can get at this point.
But for individual rules. Test them in-house and change them. And if they don't pan out then change them again, but commit to the changes.
I have seen a guy sell his BA to a new player, the new guy even asked for a cash discount, becauese an all jump pack army isn't that great, and all the vets jumped in and told him that those are just things that happen to BA, because of the beta rules, and that beta rules may get changed. The new guy just does know yet that all the store games are always played with the beta rules in effect.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/01 09:27:16
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
Beta rules are great, it means players can test them.
And give feedback, it’s a matter if the dev team can read and understand that feedback.
Sometimes having everyone saying it’s awful is great feedback, even if they all think it’s for different reasons.
But I think most players should be able to understand beta rules, turn up and ask if it’s fine to use em. Or use Facebook, discord, phone to work it out ahead of time.
I think people's problems with beta rules have more to do with the fact that there is a uniform adoption of the rule rather than there being beta rules.
However, the reason I think there has been uniform adoption of beta rules is that so far they have been rules that actually addressed issued and felt fairer. If the beta rules were horrendous and made the game unplayable people would probably eschew them for the original rules.
Looking over the beta rules since the first big FAQ I have to say that each and every rule made the game better rather than not. Sure, it invalidated armies that were one-trick ponies, but for the health of the game that is a good thing.
BaconCatBug wrote: Considering we're up to eighty eight documents (at the time of writing) I really wish GW would consolidate stuff.
Beta Rules especially should be all in one place, online for free.
Absolutely agree.
Given that they aren't though, I really can't begrudge people for relying on Battlescribe.
Sure it has its limits, and everyone should look at the original sources ultimately for issues that arise. But in the middle of game, or when starting out with the game...
I really don't blame people these days.
Also, it's generally way more accurate than the detractors try to make out.
Darsath wrote: Paying for Beta rules is very silly. There really isn't much of an argument as to why players should be expected to pay to playtest new rules.
There really isn't much of an argument as to why we pay for any rules. And yet, by some sort of unwitting collective agreement, we all do. I really can't figure out how we can have a world where almost the entire internet relies on a pile of open source software and yet, the same philosophy hasn't yet been successfully applied to tiny plastic war dudes.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/01 10:14:48
Darsath wrote: Paying for Beta rules is very silly. There really isn't much of an argument as to why players should be expected to pay to playtest new rules.
There really isn't much of an argument as to why we pay for any rules. And yet, by some sort of unconscious collective agreement, we all do. I really can't figure out how we can have a world where almost the entire internet relies on a pile of open source software and yet, the same philosophy hasn't yet been successfully applied to tiny plastic war dudes.
GW won't change while it thinks Codexes are profitable.
The moment they think that free rules will result in a net gain, I think we'd see them switch. It probably will happen, it's the way the world is turning. But it could take a long time yet!
Darsath wrote: Paying for Beta rules is very silly. There really isn't much of an argument as to why players should be expected to pay to playtest new rules.
There really isn't much of an argument as to why we pay for any rules. And yet, by some sort of unconscious collective agreement, we all do. I really can't figure out how we can have a world where almost the entire internet relies on a pile of open source software and yet, the same philosophy hasn't yet been successfully applied to tiny plastic war dudes.
GW won't change while it thinks Codexes are profitable.
The moment they think that free rules will result in a net gain, I think we'd see them switch. It probably will happen, it's the way the world is turning. But it could take a long time yet!
My confusion isn't about why GW won't do it; that's obvious. My confusion is about why we the community haven't done it ourselves.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/01 10:17:28
As long as GW continues to make beta rules available to everyone and doesn't gate them inside an issue of WD I don't have a problem from an availability point of view. I think trying to develop the game is also good, certainly much better than previous version where problems would often sit unaddressed for years.
If anything I wouldn't mind seeing GW treat their beta rules as an opportunity to try more radical ideas and fixes. Right now it feels like beta rules end up being universally adopted immediately and don't see much change later. Some more experimentation might be useful for helping improve the game in unexppected ways. I think there'd be a perception problem if they tried that now, since people treat beta rules more like, well, rules now.
Darsath wrote: Paying for Beta rules is very silly. There really isn't much of an argument as to why players should be expected to pay to playtest new rules.
There really isn't much of an argument as to why we pay for any rules. And yet, by some sort of unwitting collective agreement, we all do. I really can't figure out how we can have a world where almost the entire internet relies on a pile of open source software and yet, the same philosophy hasn't yet been successfully applied to tiny plastic war dudes.
Working in software, let me assure you you do NOT want open source modeled rules, unless you want to start hiring experts who just so happen to contribute to the project to start making lists and playing for you. There's plenty of money being made off open source software and it's model does not ensure a quick and easy use experience.
Or we could have thousands of rules forks fall up their own holes because someone removed a small but basic rule they all relied on from distribution.
No, they charge for rules because people will pay for them. Same reason you pay for a boxed game when you already have dice and tokens you could use.
BaconCatBug wrote: They tried that when GW killed off WHFB, it was called The Ninth Age and it was Dead on Arrival.
You might want to tell all the ETC players that 9th Age was DoA, the hundreds of them that show up each year don't seem to have got the memo. I'm no big fan of the 9th Age system but to claim it's DoA is pretty wildly inaccurate.
My confusion is about why we the community haven't done it ourselves.
BaconCatBug wrote:They tried that when GW killed off WHFB, it was called The Ninth Age and it was Dead on Arrival.
And why do you think that is? Do you think it's fair to say that it must have been a generally poorer game than Age of Sigmar or do you think that people are so emotionally invested in Games-Workshop, that we will just eschew anything not produced by our "Lords and Masters" because we are all to afraid to think for ourselves?
XuQishi wrote:Because most of the time you'd end up with roughly 50.000 forks and nobody playing the same game.
The same is true of open source software, and yet despite all of the garbage that exists, there are a handful of gems out there. What I'm wondering is, if there are so many people out there creating their own home brew rules, then where are the gems?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/01 10:42:18
Darsath wrote: Paying for Beta rules is very silly. There really isn't much of an argument as to why players should be expected to pay to playtest new rules.
As far as I can tell, all Beta rules are available online. I know Bolter Discipline is in WD but it is available online as well.
I think they are a great idea. And, generally speaking, a good (but not excellent) fixes for the problems of the game.
I also despise the fragmentation of sources and rulebook bloat... and in my opinion GW is (inadvertently) causing the demise of their own print rulebook system. Which will never happens too soon.
I already uses only digital codex by tablet, battle scribe and (just for tournament) the tactical deck (which includes anything even remotely useful in physical copy).
So, literally: the more GW pushes us to purchasing paper supplement with a short lifespan (especially if you compare them to substitute gaming product: board games, rpgs, even videogames), the happier I am because the sooner the system will collapse.
Sooner or later, they'll finally release an official subscription format for rules. In the meantime, my money will go to what's worth: models rather than rules.
I can't condone a place where abusers and abused are threated the same: it's destined to doom, so there is no reason to participate in it.
1000pt Skitari Legion 
14000
15000
4000 
