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.
AnomanderRake wrote: The missing step is handing the rules to someone outside the development team who doesn't already know what they're supposed to mean, so they can check that they don't use the same word to mean two different things in different places.
That's why they hand them to three different playtesting groups outside of the dev team.
I mean, if none of those three independent playtesting groups could notice that they were (for instance) using "maneuver" to mean two different things in Aeronautica Imperialis, maybe they need to find better ones.
From what I've read their playtesting is weird anyway. They will be like here playtest this predetermined thing and see if there's anything wrong, so they never give the playtesters the option to show the flaws in list building since they aren't allowed to build their own lists.
I wouldn't be surprised if they had strict rules for what the playtesters are even allowed to bring up rather than let them actually test the whole thing and provide feedback. I also doubt they can provide suggestions.
then they should add them to the matched play rules.
Actually, I agree with this. Only by "they" I mean "everyone" since unless it involves PL the rules should port over into matched play games just fine (and even then since points costs for things exist even the Looted Wagons and Custom Land Raider tules can be made Matched Play just by adding up total points costs).
That said, I feel the big fault of terrain in 40k is that it's only really two categories: ruins or fortifications. That isn't enough depth (and titanic units should be able to hit anything that isn't higher up than they are tall in melee) and that leaves a loy about the game feel rather meeeeeh when it comes to board layout.
Then again I miss replacing exploded vehicles with craters and using wrecked vehicles as terrain, so I have biases.
There are far many more terrain elements than just those 2. It's just that ITC uses only ruins, so for some reason people decides to use only ruins.
There are craters.
There are barricades.
There are sector mechanicus.
There are woods.
There are a huge number of different elements that people refuse to use and then complain that there aren't in depth terrain rules.
This has even skewed the common thinking of players. For example many think that lists based on bike and beasts for melee isn't good, because they can't charge someone on a terrain element WHICH IS WRONG. They cannot go only on RUINS, every other terrain element is perfectly fine. If you identify an element as a sector mechanicus instead of a ruin, you actually have the opposite effect, with infantries being limited in mobility.
The players are shooting in their foots here.
But TLOS means that woods and craters and (maybe) barricades are often completely useless for vehicles and models not standing literally in them.
They give cover quite easily. With a single wood you can give cover to 6 razorbacks, they are far from useless.
Perfect was too strong of a word perhaps, but there is a rather vocal minority who wants a game more balanced than we're ever realistically ever going to see unless GW stops making stuff for the game and only focuses on refining the rules from this point on.
I find amazing the fact that the minimum work required from a game designer it's presented as a sort of extraordinary effort that GW would carry out as a magnanimous deed only for us.
Writing a game? Asking money for the rules? Well playtest these rules, make them clear and consistent, etc.
They do playtest the rules with multiple groups. This blatant show of ignorance of how the rules are written when there is so much publicly said by the studio and the testers baffles me.
Here's what GW does to playtest rules:
1. Write the rule to try and capture the feeling of the lore and the design of the mini (James even mentions that's the most important part of his job, making the rules represent the setting and the models)
2. Peer review the rule in the studio
3. Repeat steps 1 and 2 until they feel satisfied with the rule.
4. Playtest with said rule so they know that it feels good to play with and against
5. Rewrite or scrap rules as needed
6. Give all the rules of that codex or campaign to playtesters who represent Matched Play, Narrative and Open play for testing. Reece is part of this step and brings in a competitive mindset into the Matched Play feedback as well as has mentioned that they do try to stress test things and look for broken combos though things can fall through the cracks.
7. Take feedback from the playtesters and rework the rules for greater clarity and less "feels bad" moments
8. Send rules off to printing
And those are just the steps we know of. This isn't counting any more playtesting that can crop up between sending something off to printing and release, like what happened to the Space Wolves and their Sagas.
Just because you don't like something that comes out in the end result doesn't mean they aren't doing their jobs or that what you see is all the work they put in. The game you get is not proportional to the amount of work that goes into making said game. You're looking at the tip of the iceberg and ignoring everything you can't directly see as being non-existant.
Citation please? I'd really like to know where you're getting this from.
Because, from an outside perspective, it really seems they do mostly in-house playtesting, and do NOT hand it to people who want to break the rules as best they can, which is what playtesting SHOULD be.
Pieced together from listening from their podcasts and listening to Reece briefly talk about playtesting on his own podcast.
Jervis even talks about killing your darlings in rules writing because often they're the rules that are the biggest mess.
And just because you hand it to number of fresh eyes we have thousands more people who will comb over the game with a thousand different ways of looking at it and then post those things online on release. It's inevitable that we'll catch more because of the sheer numbers involved. We lose perspective of that I think.
AnomanderRake wrote: The missing step is handing the rules to someone outside the development team who doesn't already know what they're supposed to mean, so they can check that they don't use the same word to mean two different things in different places.
That's why they hand them to three different playtesting groups outside of the dev team.
I mean, if none of those three independent playtesting groups could notice that they were (for instance) using "maneuver" to mean two different things in Aeronautica Imperialis, maybe they need to find better ones.
Aeronautica is a box game, I can't speak for how they test those. I was speaking of 40k and AoS.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wayniac wrote: From what I've read their playtesting is weird anyway. They will be like here playtest this predetermined thing and see if there's anything wrong, so they never give the playtesters the option to show the flaws in list building since they aren't allowed to build their own lists.
I wouldn't be surprised if they had strict rules for what the playtesters are even allowed to bring up rather than let them actually test the whole thing and provide feedback. I also doubt they can provide suggestions.
That's what old playtesting was like, but I haven't heard those claims being raised for modern playtesting.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/09/10 19:29:32
skchsan wrote: Aside from point values for units not properly reflecting its performance on the board, stratagems being unevenly helpful, and typos on the rulebook/codex, exactly what about the rules do you guys truly think is wrong/bad about it?
Or is it simply the sins of the above that brings down the entire game?
The terrain rules fething suck and you can't defend them as is.
CA18 fixed them and now terrain works great.
Would that be the Cities of Death, which are touted as being for Narrative play and seem to have never been picked up for Matched? If so then I agree it fixed them, just that fix is never in place where it matters because it's "not for matched play" so might as well not be a fix at all.
Seems to be the players' fault if they're on the one hand consider a rule that is not matched play but useful as default matched play rule ("rule of 3") and on the other hand consider a rule that is not matched play but even more useful (Cities of Death terrain rules) as not worth it.
Also, some people seem to miss that CA also updated most terrain rules from the rulebook. These terrain rules aren't even optional (unlike rule of 3) yet I'm not sure if many people noticed them.
People don't use the COD rules because they're a janke first draft that HEAVILY favors some units/armies over others.
They absolutely need another balance pass before they get implemented, even by 40k's loose standard for balance.
then they should add them to the matched play rules.
Actually, I agree with this. Only by "they" I mean "everyone" since unless it involves PL the rules should port over into matched play games just fine (and even then since points costs for things exist even the Looted Wagons and Custom Land Raider tules can be made Matched Play just by adding up total points costs).
That said, I feel the big fault of terrain in 40k is that it's only really two categories: ruins or fortifications. That isn't enough depth (and titanic units should be able to hit anything that isn't higher up than they are tall in melee) and that leaves a loy about the game feel rather meeeeeh when it comes to board layout.
Then again I miss replacing exploded vehicles with craters and using wrecked vehicles as terrain, so I have biases.
There are far many more terrain elements than just those 2. It's just that ITC uses only ruins, so for some reason people decides to use only ruins.
There are craters.
There are barricades.
There are sector mechanicus.
There are woods.
There are a huge number of different elements that people refuse to use and then complain that there aren't in depth terrain rules.
This has even skewed the common thinking of players. For example many think that lists based on bike and beasts for melee isn't good, because they can't charge someone on a terrain element WHICH IS WRONG. They cannot go only on RUINS, every other terrain element is perfectly fine. If you identify an element as a sector mechanicus instead of a ruin, you actually have the opposite effect, with infantries being limited in mobility.
The players are shooting in their foots here.
But TLOS means that woods and craters and (maybe) barricades are often completely useless for vehicles and models not standing literally in them.
not if the rules state that models/units in/on craters are a -1 to hit and +1 to their save. so TLOS wouldnt work due to a rule interaction. If a vehicle is more than 50% on/in terrain with this rule, then it would receive full benefit, just like it does currently.
There should be a movement modifier for going thru a crater/ruin/woods. You cant move as fast in a forest as you can a city street as you can across a ruined building.
The COD rules do not favor anyone in particular. If you're a gunline, deployment is key and choosing where to move even more so. If you're an assault army, deployment is key and choosing where to go even more so.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/09/10 19:41:12
auticus wrote: Thats been their stance for 30 odd years. I don't think most people who play competitively really care what the gw design studio intent is. The reality is the rules ARE used to crush each other into paste.
Truth rings like a bell.^^
Automatically Appended Next Post:
slave.entity wrote: This video aligns with what I've been experiencing lately. After getting tired of competitive play, I switched mentalities and started thinking of the ruleset as a base with which to play out fun lore-centric scenarios on the tabletop. It wasn't hard to convince my friends to start playing this way. Suddenly, all of those models collecting dust that we've longed to run for months or years now have a purpose! All of those "useless" datasheets suddenly have a ton of value! And since we've all been focusing so hard on competitive strength for the past few years, it's been relatively easy to put our heads together and set up fairly "balanced" lists and matchups before our narrative game session starts.
I'm looking forward to playing more games in this style. It's opened up a whole new dimension of play among my group.
This is awesome.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/10 19:43:22
Well, if they're anything like the previous versions of the Eight then I could see what they mean, as they had some of the most schizophrenic mechanical designs I've ever seen, with loadouts that seemed to just be randomly thrown together, almost.
How do you see what they mean when neither they nor you have ever tried to actually play them in a competitive format - or probably at all?
Which comes back to this thread and people slating what some GW designer has said without even bothering to listen to what he said. So they are putting words in his mouth and then slating the words they put in his mouth.
Because you can see from their loadouts that no thought went into making them functional or coherent.
Brightsword: wielding fusion blades, a target lock and a counterfire defence system. Yes, because re-rolling his 2 overwatch shots which hit on 6s was better than having another gun or a shield generator. Bravestorm: Plasma Rifle, flamer, Onager gauntlet, shield generator, ATS. What is this suit trying to do? Who is it trying to kill that a single plasma rifle and flamer is optimal? The gauntlet would suggest vehicles but the plasma rifle and flamer do not mesh well with that. Sha'vastos: Plasma rifle, flamer, shield gen, drone controller. Again, what is this suit trying to do? What target is it meant to threaten with a single plasma rifle and flamer? Arra'kon: AFP, CIB, Plasma Rifle, CDS. Again, who is it trying to target? Does it fire each of its guns at a separate target? They're pretty short range to do that. Torchstar: 2 flamers, ATS, drone controller. Because two -1AP flamers are the best weapon choices for the only BS2+ model we've got. Ob'lotai: Just a standard missileside, so no real issue here. O'vesa: Ion Accelerator, target lock and velocity tracker Riptide with re-roll 1s to hit and ignores mortal wounds from nova on a 4+.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/10 19:45:36
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
JNAProductions wrote: If the intent is just a vehicle for cool stories, why does it cost so damn much money?
With suffering comes inspiration.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: And beyond the issue of cooperative vs. competitive 40k doesn't have the narrative elements that define a game like D&D. In terms of how the printed rules function, not GW's inane author commentary about "DRINK BEER* AND FORGE A NARRATIVE", 40k is just a straightforward tabletop miniatures game with poor balance and dysfunctional rules. All of the "narrative" elements in 40k exist in purely competitive wargames, but GW seems to depend on creating a wall around their private retail chain and selling to customers who don't know about any other games.
*It should really say something that GW's strongest demonstration of a "narrative" gaming approach is a concession that they're a bunch of marginally-functional alcoholics.
AHHHH... it is the alcoholism! That explains a lot...I knew that I liked Warhammer for some reason,,,
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: It is fine for their intent to be to make more narratively focused games. But that is not an excuse to not bother to design a robust core system to hang your narrative games around.
8th certainly looks on the surface to be better than the previous two editions in that regard, but there is stil a lot of silliness and bad design ideas in the game that are obvious from even a fairly superficial read.
As others have said, if GW expect me to do the work of fixing all that stuff and designing my own stuff, that is cool, but then I will not be spending money on their over priced and poorly written published materials. There are plenty of simpler, easier to adapt systems out there with a more robust core, and if I am gonna be negotiating everything anyway with my opponent, I figure I will start the negotiation with "Hey lets use these cool models to play this other, better game!".
I think what that designer is saying is really more of a justification or excuse though. One of my favourite modern games is 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons, which certainly lends itself towards a tailored experience and is certainly helpful in creating a narrative (though I would dispute that it is purely a narrative game). And to appeal to people who like a narrative, one of the main things they release are pre written adventure narratives to inspire people, give them stuff to take apart, locations and stories to work with or play through. GW does sometimes release stuff like this, but it is not the majority of their releases in the same way it is for Wizards of the Coast. They were releasing a bunch of narrative campaigns for Age of Sigmar, so perhaps that was their intent, but I think the books were too expensive and the system they were based on was too half formed and controversial, so they seem to have stopped with that model now. Maybe they will try again? I liked the narrative stuff for the Third War for Armageddon, it was great.
Wargames are resource heavy and expensive hobbies, a robust core set of rules is really important to make sure that the experience is satisfying on a base level.
Wham!^^
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/09/10 19:51:17
skchsan wrote: Aside from point values for units not properly reflecting its performance on the board, stratagems being unevenly helpful, and typos on the rulebook/codex, exactly what about the rules do you guys truly think is wrong/bad about it?
Or is it simply the sins of the above that brings down the entire game?
The terrain rules fething suck and you can't defend them as is.
CA18 fixed them and now terrain works great.
Would that be the Cities of Death, which are touted as being for Narrative play and seem to have never been picked up for Matched? If so then I agree it fixed them, just that fix is never in place where it matters because it's "not for matched play" so might as well not be a fix at all.
Seems to be the players' fault if they're on the one hand consider a rule that is not matched play but useful as default matched play rule ("rule of 3") and on the other hand consider a rule that is not matched play but even more useful (Cities of Death terrain rules) as not worth it.
Also, some people seem to miss that CA also updated most terrain rules from the rulebook. These terrain rules aren't even optional (unlike rule of 3) yet I'm not sure if many people noticed them.
People don't use the COD rules because they're a janke first draft that HEAVILY favors some units/armies over others.
They absolutely need another balance pass before they get implemented, even by 40k's loose standard for balance.
then they should add them to the matched play rules.
Actually, I agree with this. Only by "they" I mean "everyone" since unless it involves PL the rules should port over into matched play games just fine (and even then since points costs for things exist even the Looted Wagons and Custom Land Raider tules can be made Matched Play just by adding up total points costs).
That said, I feel the big fault of terrain in 40k is that it's only really two categories: ruins or fortifications. That isn't enough depth (and titanic units should be able to hit anything that isn't higher up than they are tall in melee) and that leaves a loy about the game feel rather meeeeeh when it comes to board layout.
Then again I miss replacing exploded vehicles with craters and using wrecked vehicles as terrain, so I have biases.
There are far many more terrain elements than just those 2. It's just that ITC uses only ruins, so for some reason people decides to use only ruins.
There are craters.
There are barricades.
There are sector mechanicus.
There are woods.
There are a huge number of different elements that people refuse to use and then complain that there aren't in depth terrain rules.
This has even skewed the common thinking of players. For example many think that lists based on bike and beasts for melee isn't good, because they can't charge someone on a terrain element WHICH IS WRONG. They cannot go only on RUINS, every other terrain element is perfectly fine. If you identify an element as a sector mechanicus instead of a ruin, you actually have the opposite effect, with infantries being limited in mobility.
The players are shooting in their foots here.
But TLOS means that woods and craters and (maybe) barricades are often completely useless for vehicles and models not standing literally in them.
not if the rules state that models/units in/on craters are a -1 to hit and +1 to their save. so TLOS wouldnt work due to a rule interaction. If a vehicle is more than 50% on/in terrain with this rule, then it would receive full benefit, just like it does currently.
There should be a movement modifier for going thru a crater/ruin/woods. You cant move as fast in a forest as you can a city street as you can across a ruined building.
The COD rules do not favor anyone in particular. If you're a gunline, deployment is key and choosing where to move even more so. If you're an assault army, deployment is key and choosing where to go even more so.
There is already a movement modifier for crates and woods. -2 charge distance.
AnomanderRake wrote: The missing step is handing the rules to someone outside the development team who doesn't already know what they're supposed to mean, so they can check that they don't use the same word to mean two different things in different places.
That's why they hand them to three different playtesting groups outside of the dev team.
I mean, if none of those three independent playtesting groups could notice that they were (for instance) using "maneuver" to mean two different things in Aeronautica Imperialis, maybe they need to find better ones.
Aeronautica is a box game, I can't speak for how they test those. I was speaking of 40k and AoS.
Did the playtesters not notice that the Khorne Bloodbound are flagrantly unplayable against any army with any shooting at all, given the degree to which they're priced around/reliant on their character auras? Or did the design team only hand them best-case playtest scenarios?
How about the GSC's complete lack of ability to meaningfully engage any kind of flyer at all? Or did the design team only hand them best-case playtest scenarios?
The Death Grip stratagem? "Kill or cripple a 300pt tank without actually using any attacks as long as you can touch it, 1CP"? Did none of the playtesters find that degenerate, or is it like all the D-strength Eldar in 7th where they said "That's what a Knight should do, and to he** with any attempt to make the game fair"?
Battle cannons? Did the independent playtest groups not notice that maybe having the ability to RFP any squad of Space Marines at 72" range might create a ludicrous alpha-strike meta that'd render the flagship army of the game nigh-unplayable? Follow-on: Did nobody consider that all the "fire twice if you don't move!" abilities might render all the Forge World armour kind of irrelevant if they didn't bother pushing the changes to them?
Flamers and aircraft? Characters screening for characters? Drop pod doors?
I know they say they have independent playtesting groups, but what do they do? It clearly isn't playtesting.
AnomanderRake wrote: The missing step is handing the rules to someone outside the development team who doesn't already know what they're supposed to mean, so they can check that they don't use the same word to mean two different things in different places.
That's why they hand them to three different playtesting groups outside of the dev team.
I mean, if none of those three independent playtesting groups could notice that they were (for instance) using "maneuver" to mean two different things in Aeronautica Imperialis, maybe they need to find better ones.
Yeah, the Frontline guys are sometimes fun, but ... maybe their skills do not extend to technical writing.
Did the playtesters not notice that the Khorne Bloodbound are flagrantly unplayable against any army with any shooting at all, given the degree to which they're priced around/reliant on their character auras? Or did the design team only hand them best-case playtest scenarios?
How about the GSC's complete lack of ability to meaningfully engage any kind of flyer at all? Or did the design team only hand them best-case playtest scenarios?
The Death Grip stratagem? "Kill or cripple a 300pt tank without actually using any attacks as long as you can touch it, 1CP"? Did none of the playtesters find that degenerate, or is it like all the D-strength Eldar in 7th where they said "That's what a Knight should do, and to he** with any attempt to make the game fair"?
Battle cannons? Did the independent playtest groups not notice that maybe having the ability to RFP any squad of Space Marines at 72" range might create a ludicrous alpha-strike meta that'd render the flagship army of the game nigh-unplayable? Follow-on: Did nobody consider that all the "fire twice if you don't move!" abilities might render all the Forge World armour kind of irrelevant if they didn't bother pushing the changes to them?
Flamers and aircraft? Characters screening for characters? Drop pod doors?
I know they say they have independent playtesting groups, but what do they do? It clearly isn't playtesting.
You're picking examples out after the fact and claiming the playtesters don't do anything just because you don't know what the rules looked like before they were released. For all we know the rules we got now came out because testers gave feedback that resulted in buffing or nerfing of things based on the feedback which lead to the problems you mentioned. If anything it shows we likely need a second round of playtesting after the first to ensure that the changes made based on playtester feedback doesn't swing too far the opposite way.
We don't get to see the beta rules so it's hard to know what they exactly play with versus what we get as an end product, but assuming the playtesters do nothing is ridiculous. Especially when you have tournament players/organizers who chase a highly competitive play style in their games involved in the process.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/09/10 20:08:26
They aren't doing enough-or, GW might not be listening to them enough. It's possible the playtesters pointed out all these issues and more, and GW just ignored them. Or it's possible that the issues didn't come up, or the playtesters ignored them.
The point? The point is that GW is selling a subpar product, but charging ludicrous prices. If the rules were all free PDFs, with the option to buy books, or even if it was something like a $10 a year subscription for the rules, that'd be... I won't say FINE, but one hell of a lot better, since you can get all the rules for free or really cheap. But they're not doing that. They're charging anywhere from $40 (Codex, no Chapter Approved, no supplements, not even the main rulebook) to...
$60 (Main Rulebook)+$115 (three Codecs, such as the three Eldar books)+$35 (Chapter Approved)+$50 (Vigilus)=$260.
And that's assuming you ONLY run Eldar. What if you have Eldar and Imperium? Or Eldar and Chaos?
Edit: Add $24 if you want to any Forgeworld units. Not that bad, but still-that's just $16 shy of $300 on rules alone.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/10 20:14:51
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
ClockworkZion wrote: ...You're picking examples out after the fact and claiming the playtesters don't do anything just because you don't know what the rules looked like before they were released. For all we know the rules we got now came out because testers gave feedback that resulted in buffing or nerfing of things based on the feedback which lead to the problems you mentioned. If anything it shows we likely need a second round of playtesting after the first to ensure that the changes made based on playtester feedback doesn't swing too far the opposite way.
We don't get to see the beta rules so it's hard to know what they exactly play with versus what we get as an end product, but assuming the playtesters do nothing is ridiculous. Especially when you have tournament players/organizers who chase a highly competitive play style in their games involved in the process.
If your argument is "you can't know if the playtesters are competent, therefore they are" that's about as right as "you can't know if the playtesters are competent, therefore they aren't".
I'm operating under the assumption that no matchup should be unplayable/an auto-win for one side simply because I picked Codex A and you picked Codex B, and Codex A beats Codex B or vice versa. From that assumption I derive the idea that there are things in the game that cause Codex A to auto-win against Codex B, and I suggest that a competent group of playtesters might notice those and do something about them. If you disagree I suppose that's your perogative but I will note that asking someone to spend $4-500 on an army and then saying "Oh, by the way, you auto-lose to (this other army), so don't bother playing those matchups" is limiting, frustrating, and creates friction in your playerbase (go ask Martel to explain why all Eldar players need to be burnt at the stake someday).
JNAProductions wrote: They aren't doing enough-or, GW might not be listening to them enough. It's possible the playtesters pointed out all these issues and more, and GW just ignored them. Or it's possible that the issues didn't come up, or the playtesters ignored them.
Or it's possible a different issue came up and GW swung the pendulum too hard and over-corrected the issue.
JNAProductions wrote: The point? The point is that GW is selling a subpar product, but charging ludicrous prices. If the rules were all free PDFs, with the option to buy books, or even if it was something like a $10 a year subscription for the rules, that'd be... I won't say FINE, but one hell of a lot better, since you can get all the rules for free or really cheap. But they're not doing that. They're charging anywhere from $40 (Codex, no Chapter Approved, no supplements, not even the main rulebook) to...
$60 (Main Rulebook)+$115 (three Codecs, such as the three Eldar books)+$35 (Chapter Approved)+$50 (Vigilus)=$260.
And that's assuming you ONLY run Eldar. What if you have Eldar and Imperium? Or Eldar and Chaos?
Edit: Add $24 if you want to any Forgeworld units. Not that bad, but still-that's just $16 shy of $300 on rules alone.
That's assuming you run ALL flavors of Eldar, and don't just pick one.
Most people who get into this game pick up the main rulebook, a codex and maybe some expansion stuff when it comes out. New Marine plays might pick up a supplement as well. Let's not pretend the most you can spend on a given faction is how much the average player actually spends on their army.
How many rulebooks do you own, Zion? GW rulebooks, that is.
And I specifically picked something that someone could reasonably run at 2,000 points. Because hey, guess what? Ynnari are a thing, and in addition to explicitly mixing all three dexes, you ALSO have to buy a White Dwarf for their rules!
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/09/10 20:21:25
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
ClockworkZion wrote: ...You're picking examples out after the fact and claiming the playtesters don't do anything just because you don't know what the rules looked like before they were released. For all we know the rules we got now came out because testers gave feedback that resulted in buffing or nerfing of things based on the feedback which lead to the problems you mentioned. If anything it shows we likely need a second round of playtesting after the first to ensure that the changes made based on playtester feedback doesn't swing too far the opposite way.
We don't get to see the beta rules so it's hard to know what they exactly play with versus what we get as an end product, but assuming the playtesters do nothing is ridiculous. Especially when you have tournament players/organizers who chase a highly competitive play style in their games involved in the process.
If your argument is "you can't know if the playtesters are competent, therefore they are" that's about as right as "you can't know if the playtesters are competent, therefore they aren't".
I'm operating under the assumption that no matchup should be unplayable/an auto-win for one side simply because I picked Codex A and you picked Codex B, and Codex A beats Codex B or vice versa. From that assumption I derive the idea that there are things in the game that cause Codex A to auto-win against Codex B, and I suggest that a competent group of playtesters might notice those and do something about them. If you disagree I suppose that's your perogative but I will note that asking someone to spend $4-500 on an army and then saying "Oh, by the way, you auto-lose to (this other army), so don't bother playing those matchups" is limiting, frustrating, and creates friction in your playerbase (go ask Martel to explain why all Eldar players need to be burnt at the stake someday).
No, my argument is that you're putting blame on the playtesters for what fell short at the end, but fail to credit them for everything that works correctly. If you're assigning blame, then you need to assign credit in equal measure. And there is a LOT more about this game that works great than stands out as a real problem. This idea that they're useless is just using them to scapegoat the problems we do see while ignoring the fact that there are problems that we don't have because we have playtesters.
Or do we want to pretend the unplaytested 6th and 7th editions didn't happen?
ClockworkZion wrote: ...Most people who get into this game pick up the main rulebook, a codex and maybe some expansion stuff when it comes out. New Marine plays might pick up a supplement as well. Let's not pretend the most you can spend on a given faction is how much the average player actually spends on their army.
And if you pick the wrong Codex? Custodes. Grey Knights. GSC. Space Wolves. Harlequins? Things that aren't designed to be played standalone and aren't signposted as such?
Also, Zion-even if they JUST buy the main rulebook ($60), a Codex (usually $40), and a supplement like Vigilus ($50) that's $150 right there.
If I spend $150 on an Imperial Knight, I'm happy-you know why? I paid good money for a quality product. It has instructions on how to build it, fits well together, and I get a cool-looking model out of it.
Why can't GW do the same for their rules?
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
And I specifically picked something that someone could reasonably run at 2,000 points. Because hey, guess what? Ynnari are a thing, and in addition to explicitly mixing all three dexes, you ALSO have to buy a White Dwarf for their rules!
For 8th? Core Rulebook, Mechanicus, Guard, Harlequins and I pick up every month's WD which included the Ynarri rules (which I'm planning on using to run Ghost Clowns).
Eventually I'll be adding Space Marines + Imperial Fists to that, and I'm definitely getting the Sisters release which comes for the rules so that'll be 3 more.
During 5th I owned every book released, and I owned most of the ones during 6th, but I've eased off on collecting books just to have the books.
And I specifically picked something that someone could reasonably run at 2,000 points. Because hey, guess what? Ynnari are a thing, and in addition to explicitly mixing all three dexes, you ALSO have to buy a White Dwarf for their rules!
For 8th? Core Rulebook, Mechanicus, Guard, Harlequins and I pick up every month's WD which included the Ynarri rules (which I'm planning on using to run Ghost Clowns).
Eventually I'll be adding Space Marines + Imperial Fists to that, and I'm definitely getting the Sisters release which comes for the rules so that'll be 3 more.
During 5th I owned every book released, and I owned most of the ones during 6th, but I've eased off on collecting books just to have the books.
Okay. So you've spent, not counting the White Dwarves, $60 (Main Book), $40 (Mech), $40 (Guard), and $35 (Quins). That's $175 right there.
You could've bought an Imperial Knight with that money. And you can't use those books without ALSO getting Chapter Approved-at least, not in most places.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
JNAProductions wrote: Also, Zion-even if they JUST buy the main rulebook ($60), a Codex (usually $40), and a supplement like Vigilus ($50) that's $150 right there.
If I spend $150 on an Imperial Knight, I'm happy-you know why? I paid good money for a quality product. It has instructions on how to build it, fits well together, and I get a cool-looking model out of it.
Why can't GW do the same for their rules?
You do know you can play a game for less than that right? If I get the free rules and a starter box (which has power levels on the datasheets) I can play a game for the cost of just a starter the same day.
Yeah it's toned way down in complexity, but it is an option and a better way to start a new player off with how to play the game then dumping book after book on them.
And I specifically picked something that someone could reasonably run at 2,000 points. Because hey, guess what? Ynnari are a thing, and in addition to explicitly mixing all three dexes, you ALSO have to buy a White Dwarf for their rules!
For 8th? Core Rulebook, Mechanicus, Guard, Harlequins and I pick up every month's WD which included the Ynarri rules (which I'm planning on using to run Ghost Clowns).
Eventually I'll be adding Space Marines + Imperial Fists to that, and I'm definitely getting the Sisters release which comes for the rules so that'll be 3 more.
During 5th I owned every book released, and I owned most of the ones during 6th, but I've eased off on collecting books just to have the books.
Okay. So you've spent, not counting the White Dwarves, $60 (Main Book), $40 (Mech), $40 (Guard), and $35 (Quins). That's $175 right there.
You could've bought an Imperial Knight with that money. And you can't use those books without ALSO getting Chapter Approved-at least, not in most places.
Most places my foot. As long as you have the current points costs most people don't care, and that's only assuming you don't play PL (which I see happen almost as often as I see people play points locally, so I know that at least some of the community plays PL).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/10 20:27:41
Ah, so you endorse pirating? After all, the only LEGAL place to get the newest points values is from Chapter Approved!
Now, being less snarky, you can obviously have five or so people chip in and drop Chapter Approved down to about $5-$7 a person. But you're, at this point, nitpicking. The rules might not be out-and-out BROKEN-they function, reasonably well-but they're not GOOD. They're not HIGH QUALITY. They're not worth three digits of dollars.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
ClockworkZion wrote: No, my argument is that you're putting blame on the playtesters for what fell short at the end, but fail to credit them for everything that works correctly. If you're assigning blame, then you need to assign credit in equal measure. And there is a LOT more about this game that works great than stands out as a real problem. This idea that they're useless is just using them to scapegoat the problems we do see while ignoring the fact that there are problems that we don't have because we have playtesters.
Or do we want to pretend the unplaytested 6th and 7th editions didn't happen?
Let me back up a step.
The point, to me, of a wargame with rules is that I can walk into a game store anywhere in the world (...that I spoke the language, I suppose), pull out my army, say "Let's play Warhammer!", and some random person I've never met before can take up my challenge, we put down equal points of models, and we have a good game.
If a game fails to do this, because the rules require creative interpretation as to what I can and can't do, or because some armies just lose to some other armies, or some other barrier to having a functional pick-up-game experience, I suggest that the game has failed to meet the basic demands of being a wargame. It might make a functional RPG, I suppose, but to my mind if I need to have a GM to play a pick-up game with a stranger it isn't a functional wargame.
So you may assert that more things have gone well than have gone badly as a result of playtesting, but to me that's roughly equivalent to looking at the Titanic and saying "well, most of the hull doesn't have holes in it"; it doesn't matter whether more rules were written well than written badly if the ship fails to remain afloat.
ClockworkZion wrote: No, my argument is that you're putting blame on the playtesters for what fell short at the end, but fail to credit them for everything that works correctly. If you're assigning blame, then you need to assign credit in equal measure. And there is a LOT more about this game that works great than stands out as a real problem. This idea that they're useless is just using them to scapegoat the problems we do see while ignoring the fact that there are problems that we don't have because we have playtesters.
Or do we want to pretend the unplaytested 6th and 7th editions didn't happen?
Let me back up a step.
The point, to me, of a wargame with rules is that I can walk into a game store anywhere in the world (...that I spoke the language, I suppose), pull out my army, say "Let's play Warhammer!", and some random person I've never met before can take up my challenge, we put down equal points of models, and we have a good game.
If a game fails to do this, because the rules require creative interpretation as to what I can and can't do, or because some armies just lose to some other armies, or some other barrier to having a functional pick-up-game experience, I suggest that the game has failed to meet the basic demands of being a wargame. It might make a functional RPG, I suppose, but to my mind if I need to have a GM to play a pick-up game with a stranger it isn't a functional wargame.
So you may assert that more things have gone well than have gone badly as a result of playtesting, but to me that's roughly equivalent to looking at the Titanic and saying "well, most of the hull doesn't have holes in it"; it doesn't matter whether more rules were written well than written badly if the ship fails to remain afloat.
That's very well-put.
I agree wholeheartedly, Anomander!
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
JNAProductions wrote: Ah, so you endorse pirating? After all, the only LEGAL place to get the newest points values is from Chapter Approved!
Now, being less snarky, you can obviously have five or so people chip in and drop Chapter Approved down to about $5-$7 a person. But you're, at this point, nitpicking. The rules might not be out-and-out BROKEN-they function, reasonably well-but they're not GOOD. They're not HIGH QUALITY. They're not worth three digits of dollars.
Who said anything about pirating? If you have a club you play at the club likely has a copy you can borrow and scribble the points into your book, and most army builders have the points costs updated pretty quickly. And that's ignoring the stuff like GMG's video that showed all the points costs.
Functional is more credit than some people are giving them, so I'll accept that. I freely admit they could be better, but they aren't broken. They play well enough in most situations and with playtesters the overall quality is leaps and bounds over what the studio was giving us in 6th and 7th. Since they broke the studio into teams to focus on specific game systems it seems to be helping further by keeping the rules devs in the right mindset for the setting they're writing for.
ClockworkZion wrote: No, my argument is that you're putting blame on the playtesters for what fell short at the end, but fail to credit them for everything that works correctly. If you're assigning blame, then you need to assign credit in equal measure. And there is a LOT more about this game that works great than stands out as a real problem. This idea that they're useless is just using them to scapegoat the problems we do see while ignoring the fact that there are problems that we don't have because we have playtesters.
Or do we want to pretend the unplaytested 6th and 7th editions didn't happen?
Let me back up a step.
The point, to me, of a wargame with rules is that I can walk into a game store anywhere in the world (...that I spoke the language, I suppose), pull out my army, say "Let's play Warhammer!", and some random person I've never met before can take up my challenge, we put down equal points of models, and we have a good game.
If a game fails to do this, because the rules require creative interpretation as to what I can and can't do, or because some armies just lose to some other armies, or some other barrier to having a functional pick-up-game experience, I suggest that the game has failed to meet the basic demands of being a wargame. It might make a functional RPG, I suppose, but to my mind if I need to have a GM to play a pick-up game with a stranger it isn't a functional wargame.
So you may assert that more things have gone well than have gone badly as a result of playtesting, but to me that's roughly equivalent to looking at the Titanic and saying "well, most of the hull doesn't have holes in it"; it doesn't matter whether more rules were written well than written badly if the ship fails to remain afloat.
Sadly I find pick up games with strangers the least enjoyable part of the game, but I'm more introverted so I burn through all the social interaction I can deal with working retail so more dealing with strangers just to get a game in doesn't exactly fill me with excitement.. I'd rather play in tournaments (where the haggling over how the game is handled by a tournament pack) or with friends (since all that is easier to do with someone you know).
So yeah, for me the game works better than it does for you because I don't have that travelling wargamer approach to the game.
That said, I don't want people assuming I don't think the rules should be tighter, I just think that there is a level of expectation people keep setting themselves up for that can never be met.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/10 20:38:31
ClockworkZion wrote: ...That said, I don't want people assuming I don't think the rules should be tighter, I just think that there is a level of expectation people keep setting themselves up for that can never be met.
Just out of curiosity, have you ever played any wargames not made by GW?
ClockworkZion wrote: ...That said, I don't want people assuming I don't think the rules should be tighter, I just think that there is a level of expectation people keep setting themselves up for that can never be met.
Just out of curiosity, have you ever played any wargames not made by GW?
I tried to get into Warmachine, but the density of stuff to memorize just to play the game was too much of a wall. I know people really loved in in 2nd, but between that and the models being metal or plastic resin just killed it for me. I don't have an interest in historicals, and the only other game I've seen make a dent here (X-wing) dried up almost as fast as it popped up, which is a shame because I did like that, though I barely managed to get any games in.
Because some of those expectations (namely Peregrine and Catbug) are for there to be 0% errors ever, and any issue is immediately a sign that the rules team is better off being fired and replaced, ect, ect, ect.
There is definitely a vocal minority who demand a level of perfection no product ever reaches and then complain about how bad something is because it's not perfect.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/10 20:46:13
Because some of those expectations (namely Peregrine and Catbug) are for there to be 0% errors ever, and any issue is immediately a sign that the rules team is better off being fired and replaced, ect, ect, ect.
I have never seen bcb or Peregrine claim 0% is only good enough.
And for a company that rakes in that much money and is that long in the buisness it is a rather lacking ruleset.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/09/10 20:57:04
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
