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.

 Cybtroll wrote:
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.

That's a brilliant idea.

Wayniac wrote:
Another issue I have with the way GW does beta rules is their beta rules are the result of data, which is good, but their data is often months old by the time they get around to it.

What they really should do is something like Privateer Press' CID (Community Integrated Development) where they frequently look at things and do adjustments, then put forth those adjustments as a public beta test with a way to get feedback, and then take that feedback and decide what to adjust.

PP's CID has a lot of restrictions to it though, one of the big ones being the developers have stated they'll flat-out ignore people that reply or post based on theory or maths. Which is a good thing, and one of the reasons it works is because for the longest time said developers were directly involved and talking with the community.
GW are just starting to really do that over the last couple of years. As much as people want them to make near-instant correction to the game-state (I'd put money on people demanding changes based on LVO next weekend) they're still essentially an iceberg that takes time to shift it's course.

I don't really "like" the beta rules, but I think it's better than either alternative. (Not giving updates to rules at all, or publishing imbalanced rules updates without chance of being changed.)
The Beta Rules for psychic powers were a huge nerf to Grey Knights, an army that was already struggling. Because they didn't just make it official, they were able to correct that problem more easily.

The ideal would, of course, be that they just publish good rules from the start, but fat chance of that happening...

Everyone's commented on the other things but..

They are mostly untested and could be really overpowered vs existing model cost (that Bolter one for example is a massive boost)

The bolter boost was "Massive"? What?

Slipspace 770831 10331542 wrote:

I strongly suspect the beta bolter rules may well have had something to do with the likes of GK and regular Tacs not getting a drop in CA. Whether that was the correct decision or not is up for debate, but it provides a possible reason for the lack of points changes to things that were obviously overcosted.

Could be, but at least in case of GK it doesn't change much. If a strike costs 20pts and a storm shield DW vet with a SB costs 20pts, and gets to run termintors to tank small weapon fire and gets very good ammo for free, then to balance this GK should either be some sort of gods in melee or have ultra smite. Right now the very fact that DW vets exists makes GK in power armor a non existent army choice. If one adds to this the fact that GK termis stayed with a higher cost then loyalist ones, the whole GK fix falls apart, as there just isn't enough models to make a valid list with GK.

I mean we could go back to the gold old days where when you got a busted rule or unit you could just wait a decade and hope it gets sorted out

But how is this different from now? The last good GK codex was when in 5th ed? So GK are waiting for a good book to play with their models 5-6 years. I doubt GW is going to print a revamped codex next year. So people will probably have to wait for 9th ed, and hope the 9th ed codex won't be based on the 8th ed codex.

I'd prefer that beta rules be free. Still put them in WD, not everyone has internet, or printer access, but it should primarily be an online resource.

Played a game last night against my buddy's Black Templars with my Salamanders. It was both of ours first game with the betarule and we both loved it. Bikes kick ass now, crusaders put out the hurt, Inceptors & aggressors are even better now.

The issue of which rule is where located in many diff sources would make for an annoying amount of literature.

As long as the betarule is readily available and they actually take the feedback from the community seriously, we might be in a better place.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Everyone's commented on the other things but..

They are mostly untested and could be really overpowered vs existing model cost (that Bolter one for example is a massive boost)

The bolter boost was "Massive"? What?

for certain units it definitely was. DOUBLING the firepower of a unit of DW Vets deploying at a safe range from charges for example.

 Mmmpi wrote:
I'd prefer that beta rules be free. Still put them in WD, not everyone has internet, or printer access, but it should primarily be an online resource.

Which is exactly what they have done with every beta rule.

Karol wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Beta rules and community playtesting are a good thing. GW's execution could use work, some serious condensing of sources, but these are way better efforts than we have seen in the past from GW.

Ok, so players give GW feed back that GK cost too much and they units are inefficient unless they are draigo or NDK GMs, that prior general nerfs hit them a bit too strong comparing to other armies . Then GW does what? They drop points on draigo and NDK GM in CA. So either they don't get feedback, they don't read it or they don't care about feedback and it is just a PR thing. I mean could have anyone imagined that the CA changes to GK is going to be GM NDK getting cheaper, but the normal NDK staying at same price?

A Codex is not a beta rule, so GW are unlikely to be looking for player feedback around it and its deficiencies.

Bolter Disciplie is a beta rule, so providing feedback based on play experiences using it is useful.

Also, not every thread on 40k General needs a post ranting about how GK are in a bad place, and how GW are awful for not fixing it right this second - everyone knows GK need work, but no-one knows how we go about fixing them (though I'd start by decoupling the FW and SB from the base cost of GK troops, myself - that seems like a really bad design choice).

The problem with the beta rule concept is that everyone just treats them as final anyway.

 TheWaspinator wrote:
The problem with the beta rule concept is that everyone just treats them as final anyway.

As long as they are not officially revoked, that's probably the intention, though.

I agree with the notion, however, that GW needs a specific section/app with these rules available at all times and possibly updated and commented on by the design team in reasonable intervals.

 TheWaspinator wrote:
The problem with the beta rule concept is that everyone just treats them as final anyway.

There's a chance they might change based on feedback but I don't see that as a reason not to use them. They're generally introduced to fix an exiting problem anyway. What's your point?

 Dysartes wrote:


A Codex is not a beta rule, so GW are unlikely to be looking for player feedback around it and its deficiencies.

Bolter Disciplie is a beta rule, so providing feedback based on play experiences using it is useful.

Also, not every thread on 40k General needs a post ranting about how GK are in a bad place, and how GW are awful for not fixing it right this second - everyone knows GK need work, but no-one knows how we go about fixing them (though I'd start by decoupling the FW and SB from the base cost of GK troops, myself - that seems like a really bad design choice).

But GK are the only army I have, and they cant be used as other armies like other marines. I care for other armies only in the aspect of how unfun they are going to be for me to play against. As for codex not being beta rules, the GK codex is the index with stratagams and relics added, and GK relics suck. If you compare how much work GW put in to the GK codex and any other book, the GK codex looks very much like something that looks like a beta codex. GK have zero synergies or interactions between their units, other then those GW copied from other marines. So a GK banner guy is going to do the same thing other marine banner guys do. In way the whole GK codex FAQ or errata look like something they do not to help GK be better, but something they do because they are doing it to other marines too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Brother Castor wrote:

 TheWaspinator wrote:
The problem with the beta rule concept is that everyone just treats them as final anyway.

There's a chance they might change based on feedback but I don't see that as a reason not to use them. They're generally introduced to fix an exiting problem anyway. What's your point?

I don't know what his point is, but to me the problem with beta tests is that in large they are no tests. Companies make you buy stuff, saying the game is in alfa or beta test, people point out what is wrong or what doesn't work. The company says they are "looking in to it". And then you get fallout 76, other games stay in an eternal beta test state. W40k feels like that. People give feed back, and GW does their own thing anyway. They are more interested in giving rules and models to new factions, then things they put out, but is broken at the moment. Why they do it, I have no idea. Technically they should want all of their armies to be good. good armies sell well, and are fun to play. Why they go for a system where some groups of people are constantly pissed off, because their armies don't work.

I like beta rules. I like that 8th is a living edition. My friends also likes Beta Rules or better said, they liked it before the Bolter Discipline. Last match, the day before I received a wathsaap where my friend sayd to me that the list should be without Beta Rules this time. Obviously if we always played with Beta, this time, only because my SM get a little boost he wants to play without Bets, but obviously I did my list with Beta.

We have the Beta for good and for bad things. I like it. I prefer GW trying to balance the armys instead of saying years with a unbalanced game.

Given the amount of threads on Dakka about SM being sub-par since 8th launched I really don't understand the animosity towards the Bolter Discipline beta rule.

Probably because the past Beta Rules where general rules. "Everyone gets this limitation". It might not have applied to your specific play style (or army because you had no Psychers), but general rules feel "fair".

The "Better Bolter" Rule only applies to Astartes, which means you feel like GW is making them better and you worst if you aren't playing Astartes. That feels "unfair", even if you know that Astartes are bad for their points.

 Brother Castor wrote:
Given the amount of threads on Dakka about SM being sub-par since 8th launched I really don't understand the animosity towards the Bolter Discipline beta rule.

Oh, that's simple. GW didn't adopt those posters ideas/those posters didn't think of the bolter rule. Thus the hate. It's really as simple as that.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Everyone's commented on the other things but..

They are mostly untested and could be really overpowered vs existing model cost (that Bolter one for example is a massive boost)

The bolter boost was "Massive"? What?

Its not massive but its definately a good boost - probably a needed one but also probbaly not affecting the units that needed it a much (Tac Marines) as other units - Bikes for instance.

Be interesting to see how it works on the table and its nowhere near the OP stuff some people insist Marines need.

The "Better Bolter" Rule only applies to Astartes, which means you feel like GW is making them better and you worst if you aren't playing Astartes. That feels "unfair", even if you know that Astartes are bad for their points

True dat.

ccs wrote:

 Brother Castor wrote:
Given the amount of threads on Dakka about SM being sub-par since 8th launched I really don't understand the animosity towards the Bolter Discipline beta rule.

Oh, that's simple. GW didn't adopt those posters ideas/those posters didn't think of the bolter rule. Thus the hate. It's really as simple as that.

Unfortunately this is all too true. "8th is terrible", "worst edition ever", "harder for me to cheat", etc... But when GW actually try to do something to improve an army/faction/game, it is all "not enough" or "too much" but dont actually offer any rational solutions or viable alternatives.

Is 8th perfect? No. Will it get better? Maybe. Will the same people complain no matter what? Hopefully not, but realistically, yes.

Just make sure you use the rules feedback email so they actually know you care enough about the game to not just complain on the internet.

Bring on the betarules GW. Long live the living edition!

 SHUPPET wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Everyone's commented on the other things but..

They are mostly untested and could be really overpowered vs existing model cost (that Bolter one for example is a massive boost)

The bolter boost was "Massive"? What?

for certain units it definitely was. DOUBLING the firepower of a unit of DW Vets deploying at a safe range from charges for example.

Ah I hadn't thought of them. I primarily play CSM so the basic troop is still worse then Cultists.

yeah I don't know if it did much for CSM :(

 Ginjitzu wrote:
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.

Customers always do things you can never predict or expect.

 Melissia wrote:

 Ginjitzu wrote:
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.

Customers always do things you can never predict or expect.

Yeah, ok, but what happens after the bug gets found? Most of the time the beta is a ready game or program, and people have been relocated to do other stuff, and the whole thing goes live with all the bugs that were reported durning the beta. Now I don't know how testing for 8th ed looked like, but I hope that someone did nudge someone at the design team that maybe, just maybe cheaper dark reapers shoting twice may not be the most fun thing to play against. And stuff like that.

But when GW actually try to do something to improve an army/faction/game, it is all "not enough" or "too much" but dont actually offer any rational solutions or viable alternatives.

Ok, do you think the bolter change and 2 HQ being cheaper made GK not the worse army in 8th ed ? I mean maybe they are, and people just don't know how to make them work. Few people play them, so the testing of lists is slow, and knowing my luck there is probably no one who mains GK in the design studio.

 Melissia wrote:

 Ginjitzu wrote:
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.

Customers always do things you can never predict or expect.

Quite, the console release of Kerbal Space Programme for an example, apparently "extensively tested", though this did not apparently involve actually playing the game whereby the actual players found a whole slew of problems that are unavoidable when you actually play the game.

e.g. buttons that don't do anything, apparently the code behind them works just fine so the automated testing worked, pity the button was never connected to it but what ho

Karol wrote:
Yeah, ok, but what happens after the bug gets found?

Ideally? It gets fixed before the full release. Realistically? It gets fixed after the release by a patch. But GW isn't writing software, so it's likely they'll do the former.

Karol wrote:
Yeah, ok, but what happens after the bug gets found? Most of the time the beta is a ready game or program, and people have been relocated to do other stuff, and the whole thing goes live with all the bugs that were reported durning the beta

If they weren't going to leave anyone on the project to fix the bugs they wouldn't release a beta... unless they were doing it for some other reason than bug testing.

Things will get grouped in into must fix now (game breakers), should fix later (significant issues), might fix if time (minor issues), and 'would be nice if we had the time' (probably won't fix)

A.T. wrote:

Karol wrote:
Yeah, ok, but what happens after the bug gets found? Most of the time the beta is a ready game or program, and people have been relocated to do other stuff, and the whole thing goes live with all the bugs that were reported durning the beta

If they weren't going to leave anyone on the project to fix the bugs they wouldn't release a beta... unless they were doing it for some other reason than bug testing.

Things will get grouped in into must fix now (game breakers), should fix later (significant issues), might fix if time (minor issues), and 'would be nice if we had the time' (probably won't fix)

And then, if the software world example is followed, fix none of them and ship it anyway with the intention, maybe, to fix ones the customers moan about the most later, if sales justify it

However, I think GW has done well enough this edition to deserve the benefit of the doubt here.

 Melissia wrote:
However, I think GW has done well enough this edition to deserve the benefit of the doubt here.

They are at least trying, with luck they will get better, they just need to learn how their utterings are generally taken and when they mean something to be for experimental testing stick "open play only" all over it