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.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And yet they're going to charge for it.

If they're charging for it, then a level of quality shouldn't just be assumed, it should be required. You can't just go "It's a marketing tool!" when you're making your customers pay for your marketing.

What's required is that it's functional, whether the quality is worth the cost is up to the consumers. That may be annoying or even infuriating, but it's reality.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And yet they're going to charge for it.

If they're charging for it, then a level of quality shouldn't just be assumed, it should be required. You can't just go "It's a marketing tool!" when you're making your customers pay for your marketing.

That's their choice, they want a return on their investment and clearly don't see its free use doing that. No software launches perfectly, the turn around on fixes and ongoing support is the yard stick you should be judging it by. I'm not fussed about GW charging or anything, just that people give the devs a chance without just crapping on their work due to it being GW.

Dudeface wrote:
That's their choice, they want a return on their investment and clearly don't see its free use doing that.

That is neither a good excuse nor does it justify their actions. If anything it makes the criticism even more valid.

Dudeface wrote:
No software launches perfectly, the turn around on fixes and ongoing support is the yard stick you should be judging it by.

Never said it had to be perfect on launch, but being a buggy mess or being full of errors at launch is pretty bad. I don't think anyone did, actually. I think functionality was expected, and pointing out areas where it is failing at functionality should be encouraged in the hope that they fix it.

Dudeface wrote:
I'm not fussed about GW charging or anything, just that people give the devs a chance without just crapping on their work due to it being GW.

The devs had a chance prior to launch. "We'll fix it in post" is an unhealthy mentality GW shouldn't have, nor any software developers they're working with.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
That's their choice, they want a return on their investment and clearly don't see its free use doing that.

That is neither a good excuse nor does it justify their actions. If anything it makes the criticism even more valid.

Dudeface wrote:
No software launches perfectly, the turn around on fixes and ongoing support is the yard stick you should be judging it by.

Never said it had to be perfect on launch, but being a buggy mess or being full of errors at launch is pretty bad. I don't think anyone did, actually. I think functionality was expected, and pointing out areas where it is failing at functionality should be encouraged in the hope that they fix it.

Dudeface wrote:
I'm not fussed about GW charging or anything, just that people give the devs a chance without just crapping on their work due to it being GW.

The devs had a chance prior to launch. "We'll fix it in post" is an unhealthy mentality GW shouldn't have, nor any software developers they're working with.

Criticise away the choice to make it chargeable, but again the devs won't have chosen the release date and GW weren't going to move it because the app needed polish. But 100% raise the areas it does badly/behaves incorrectly, they might be aware already but it'll add pressure to sort it sooner. Just make sure it's raised with them, not just the forum.

Bencyclopedia wrote:

I feel like you missunderstand Games Workshops priorites, sure they could throw resources at it to make a fantastic app, but as Dudeface said they're not a software company. As far and GW is concerned they make and sell miniatures. The games are marketing tools, the app is at best, a small part of that marketing tool. It's never going to be a priority. I'm sure the individuals working on it want it to be good, but I doubt their bosses care provided that it's functional. Setting your bar much higher than that is setting yourself up for disappointment.

I don't care what their priorities are, they want me to pay for a product and as the biggest wargaming company I expect a certain minimum

that they are not a software company, or don't want to invest money into a product is not of my business, and for sure nothing I should have sympathy or see it as a good excuse

there is a certain bar for the luxury and high quality product with a luxury and high quality price tag

A Porsche not having a better software for linking my phone as a Dacia because those are car companies and not software companies and therefore I should not expect the Porsche to be better because this is not their priority is bs
if GW wants to be the best and charge high prices, they need to deliver high level products and there is no excuse for this

GW wants to be Porsche of Wargaming they is a certain minimum required which is higher than for everyone else
that the small companies must be cheaper and better than GW while GW gets away with this things because "reasons" is a white knight level fanboy

GW is a miniature company and therefore we should not expect a good product for anything else but miniatures is bs because than everything but their miniatures should be free

GW is not an Indi company were "not our priority" or "we are not into software" is an excuse

 Shadow Walker wrote:

Spoiler:

Very fair review all in all.

 kodos wrote:

I don't care what their priorities are, they want me to pay for a product and as the biggest wargaming company I expect a certain minimum

that they are not a software company, or don't want to invest money into a product is not of my business, and for sure nothing I should have sympathy or see it as a good excuse

there is a certain bar for the luxury and high quality product with a luxury and high quality price tag

A Porsche not having a better software for linking my phone as a Dacia because those are car companies and not software companies and therefore I should not expect the Porsche to be better because this is not their priority is bs
if GW wants to be the best and charge high prices, they need to deliver high level products and there is no excuse for this

GW wants to be Porsche of Wargaming they is a certain minimum required which is higher than for everyone else
that the small companies must be cheaper and better than GW while GW gets away with this things because "reasons" is a white knight level fanboy

GW is a miniature company and therefore we should not expect a good product for anything else but miniatures is bs because than everything but their miniatures should be free

GW is not an Indi company were "not our priority" or "we are not into software" is an excuse

This!

 kodos wrote:

Bencyclopedia wrote:

I feel like you missunderstand Games Workshops priorites, sure they could throw resources at it to make a fantastic app, but as Dudeface said they're not a software company. As far and GW is concerned they make and sell miniatures. The games are marketing tools, the app is at best, a small part of that marketing tool. It's never going to be a priority. I'm sure the individuals working on it want it to be good, but I doubt their bosses care provided that it's functional. Setting your bar much higher than that is setting yourself up for disappointment.

I don't care what their priorities are, they want me to pay for a product and as the biggest wargaming company I expect a certain minimum

that they are not a software company, or don't want to invest money into a product is not of my business, and for sure nothing I should have sympathy or see it as a good excuse

there is a certain bar for the luxury and high quality product with a luxury and high quality price tag

A Porsche not having a better software for linking my phone as a Dacia because those are car companies and not software companies and therefore I should not expect the Porsche to be better because this is not their priority is bs
if GW wants to be the best and charge high prices, they need to deliver high level products and there is no excuse for this

GW wants to be Porsche of Wargaming they is a certain minimum required which is higher than for everyone else
that the small companies must be cheaper and better than GW while GW gets away with this things because "reasons" is a white knight level fanboy

GW is a miniature company and therefore we should not expect a good product for anything else but miniatures is bs because than everything but their miniatures should be free

GW is not an Indi company were "not our priority" or "we are not into software" is an excuse

Great example, as Porsche charge you a subscription for that suite of best in class connectivity:

https://www.porsche.com/uk/connect/

Can't argue the GW isn't the best out there, but are you going to go to the Porsche forums and tell them it should be free?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And yet they're going to charge for it.

If they're charging for it, then a level of quality shouldn't just be assumed, it should be required. You can't just go "It's a marketing tool!" when you're making your customers pay for your marketing.

Heh. White Dwarf is a merketing tool they charge for.

Not trying to excuse their behavior. Just an observation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
The Heavy Plasma Cannon is an option for the Boxnaught on its datasheet. There's also a Twin Heavy Plasma Cannon available for the Storm Raven.

Which is fantastic, but neither of those sheets are in this Index. And, again, these are the base weapons of this unit, and aren't in its rules. That is quite silly.

Oh I guess I don't know what index your'retalking about, then.

Dudeface wrote:
but are you going to go to the Porsche forums and tell them it should be free?

people do, haven't seen anyone defending this and a lot of complaining as it offers nothing over carplay which is free

but to be fair with Porsche, if you buy one of their cars it is included for the first 3 years so comparing it with GW, if you buy Leviathan the App would be free until the next Edition launches

so yes, GW offers less than Porsche here

One tournament organizer in German seems to have banned 10th completely.

BTW if you are comparing porche thing with GW you can't say GW should have free for next edition to be same as porche. 3 years yes for porche free but unless porche lifetime is 3 years it's not same. It's relative % of lifetime that matters. Not absolute numbers.

How on earth do threads like this get to the point of comparing GW with Porsche???

 Snord wrote:
How on earth do threads like this get to the point of comparing GW with Porsche???

GW itself considers its product to be worthy of comparably luxury hobby objects.

And arguably on the model front, there are some that reach the quality standard, but of course it is kinda absurd in comparison and stems from the broad 4 product types scheme that exists in buissness classes. (i don't got the name right now and my economy courses are now quite a few years behind so i am sorry).

 kodos wrote:


Not like GW had 3 years time to make something useful and ready at launch

This is a flawed point that seems to have been skipped over. They only had three years to develop a new app if you assume that 10th edition was designed, written, and nigh-complete three years ago. We know that it wasn't, and no one is going to start developing an app for a game that doesn't yet exist.

Between comments by studio staff and the customer survey GW put out in late 2021, it's highly likely that the final design of the game wasn't nailed down until at least early 2022. It's also probable that writing on the 2000+ datasheets for indexes, IA, Legends, and Combat Patrol rules continued into 2023.

I would very surprised if the developers were able to spend more than 6-12 months on this new app.

 xttz wrote:

 kodos wrote:


Not like GW had 3 years time to make something useful and ready at launch

This is a flawed point that seems to have been skipped over. They only had three years to develop a new app if you assume that 10th edition was designed, written, and nigh-complete three years ago. We know that it wasn't, and no one is going to start developing an app for a game that doesn't yet exist.

Between comments by studio staff and the customer survey GW put out in late 2021, it's highly likely that the final design of the game wasn't nailed down until at least early 2022. It's also probable that writing on the 2000+ datasheets for indexes, IA, Legends, and Combat Patrol rules continued into 2023.

I would very surprised if the developers were able to spend more than 6-12 months on this new app.

You could start making the app before you had any of the rules for 10th, because much of the work that goes into the app, such as database design, logic, etc. functions exactly the same regardless of what the rules turn out to be. I've worked in software design, making a web portal for an international shipping insurance company. That required me to write code that would automatically populate the fields on an insurance policy document based on user input. I was able to make that code using Lorum Ipsum long before I got sent the actual policy text templates by the company in question. And those policy template texts were revised multiple times throughout development, but that was easy to fix as all it required was updating database entries for the relevant information.

For instance, GW always knew they were going to be making use of special rules and keywords. The developer doesn't need to know what the finalised text of the special rules is to code in a system where you can tap on a keyword on a weapon profile and it opens a box telling you what that keyword means. They don't need to know how many special weapons a space marine squad can take to code in logic where the app checks your selections against a limit in the database and doesn't let you add more than you are allowed.

xttz is right: GW didn't start working on 10th Edition three years ago. They started two years ago.

 Insectum7 wrote:
White Dwarf is a merketing tool they charge for.

That's a grey area. WD certain contains advertisements, and it can be seen as a form of advertisement from a broad perspective, but it is also a form of entertainment. Transformers and GI Joe are ostensibly toy commercials, but that doesn't mean they don't have any value outside of a toy commercial.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Oh I guess I don't know what index your'retalking about, then.

The so-called "Heresy era" Legends Indices that came out yesterday.

Snord wrote:How on earth do threads like this get to the point of comparing GW with Porsche???

because GW once claimed they are / want to be, the Porsche of miniature gaming

xttz wrote:

 kodos wrote:


Not like GW had 3 years time to make something useful and ready at launch

This is a flawed point that seems to have been skipped over. They only had three years to develop a new app if you assume that 10th edition was designed, written, and nigh-complete three years ago. We know that it wasn't, and no one is going to start developing an app for a game that doesn't yet exist.

Between comments by studio staff and the customer survey GW put out in late 2021, it's highly likely that the final design of the game wasn't nailed down until at least early 2022. It's also probable that writing on the 2000+ datasheets for indexes, IA, Legends, and Combat Patrol rules continued into 2023.

I would very surprised if the developers were able to spend more than 6-12 months on this new app.

GW knew that the new Editon will be 3 years in the future, and GW had an App for 40k that wa snot working well while at the same time have an App for AoS that gets the job done

the App designer does not need to know the details in rules or what army composition will look like to make the interface working or to have an easy rules input for quick updates from one source (so that Datacards in the App and Datacards to download are always the same)

if you need a complete game to design the App around it, well if GW has really done that, we are going to see a new App with 11th simply because it won't be compatible with any change coming with the new Edition (or even will be broken with the mid Edition design shift)

the basic functionality of an App for Wargaming are always the same, chose units, chose options, cross link rules and sum up the points
easy army can handle several different games with the same basic program, that GW needs to have a finished product to design those features is not an excuse but just not understanding who those things should work in the first place

and that the GW App is missing the basic feature that if I chose one option, wargear that is replaced is not unchecked as well shows that the App was not designed with "final" product in mind

for designing an App for a game that does not exist, Battlescribe was developed for game that does not exist, it was designed with basic features to be compatible with any game
and GW must have made the decision to not use the base of the old App for their new Edition and if they did not made that early on but later and therefore had not enough time to do it right, it is their own fault and no reason to show sympathy or excuse it

 kodos wrote:

Snord wrote:How on earth do threads like this get to the point of comparing GW with Porsche???

because GW once claimed they are / want to be, the Porsche of miniature gaming

xttz wrote:

 kodos wrote:


Not like GW had 3 years time to make something useful and ready at launch

This is a flawed point that seems to have been skipped over. They only had three years to develop a new app if you assume that 10th edition was designed, written, and nigh-complete three years ago. We know that it wasn't, and no one is going to start developing an app for a game that doesn't yet exist.

Between comments by studio staff and the customer survey GW put out in late 2021, it's highly likely that the final design of the game wasn't nailed down until at least early 2022. It's also probable that writing on the 2000+ datasheets for indexes, IA, Legends, and Combat Patrol rules continued into 2023.

I would very surprised if the developers were able to spend more than 6-12 months on this new app.

GW knew that the new Editon will be 3 years in the future, and GW had an App for 40k that wa snot working well while at the same time have an App for AoS that gets the job done

the App designer does not need to know the details in rules or what army composition will look like to make the interface working or to have an easy rules input for quick updates from one source (so that Datacards in the App and Datacards to download are always the same)

if you need a complete game to design the App around it, well if GW has really done that, we are going to see a new App with 11th simply because it won't be compatible with any change coming with the new Edition (or even will be broken with the mid Edition design shift)

the basic functionality of an App for Wargaming are always the same, chose units, chose options, cross link rules and sum up the points
easy army can handle several different games with the same basic program, that GW needs to have a finished product to design those features is not an excuse but just not understanding who those things should work in the first place

and that the GW App is missing the basic feature that if I chose one option, wargear that is replaced is not unchecked as well shows that the App was not designed with "final" product in mind

for designing an App for a game that does not exist, Battlescribe was developed for game that does not exist, it was designed with basic features to be compatible with any game
and GW must have made the decision to not use the base of the old App for their new Edition and if they did not made that early on but later and therefore had not enough time to do it right, it is their own fault and no reason to show sympathy or excuse it

A database needs a schema to work, that schema needs to map out the relations between the data, which can't be made until you know whether say, wargear will cost points or not.

Dudeface wrote:


A database needs a schema to work, that schema needs to map out the relations between the data, which can't be made until you know whether say, wargear will cost points or not.

Or, you could build it so the wargear could cost points, and if they decide they don't (either just in combat patrol or throughout the edition) you just set the cost value to zero.

 kodos wrote:

Bencyclopedia wrote:

I feel like you missunderstand Games Workshops priorites, sure they could throw resources at it to make a fantastic app, but as Dudeface said they're not a software company. As far and GW is concerned they make and sell miniatures. The games are marketing tools, the app is at best, a small part of that marketing tool. It's never going to be a priority. I'm sure the individuals working on it want it to be good, but I doubt their bosses care provided that it's functional. Setting your bar much higher than that is setting yourself up for disappointment.

I don't care what their priorities are, they want me to pay for a product and as the biggest wargaming company I expect a certain minimum

that they are not a software company, or don't want to invest money into a product is not of my business, and for sure nothing I should have sympathy or see it as a good excuse

there is a certain bar for the luxury and high quality product with a luxury and high quality price tag

A Porsche not having a better software for linking my phone as a Dacia because those are car companies and not software companies and therefore I should not expect the Porsche to be better because this is not their priority is bs
if GW wants to be the best and charge high prices, they need to deliver high level products and there is no excuse for this

GW wants to be Porsche of Wargaming they is a certain minimum required which is higher than for everyone else
that the small companies must be cheaper and better than GW while GW gets away with this things because "reasons" is a white knight level fanboy

GW is a miniature company and therefore we should not expect a good product for anything else but miniatures is bs because than everything but their miniatures should be free

GW is not an Indi company were "not our priority" or "we are not into software" is an excuse

I fear I'm going to come across as nitpicky and confrontational but this is just a bad analogy. Porche make cars, GW make miniatures. The 40k app to GW is more akin to a branded keyring to Porche, it is not their core business and it will never get the resource allocation that their core business gets. I'm not saying you have to be happy about it, just that we have to be realistic. Yes the app should be functional, it would be really good if it went beyond that, but expecting Porche quality out of the army building app is naive.

 Dawnbringer wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


A database needs a schema to work, that schema needs to map out the relations between the data, which can't be made until you know whether say, wargear will cost points or not.

Or, you could build it so the wargear could cost points, and if they decide they don't (either just in combat patrol or throughout the edition) you just set the cost value to zero.

You'd make a good project manager or pre-sales. But ultimately that's time and wasted effort building things on a what-if.

What does point cost have to do with it?

You don't need a different App just because points are 0 or 10 for wargear

You need the functionality that if you have "option B replaces option A" that choosing B also removes A from the rooster

And this is not there, if the database has value behind the options does only matter if this replacement does not work

And if that App is build that way we are going to see a new one as soon as there are bigger points changes

Exactly, it'd be a waste of time to build a system let you spend points on anything other than models for 10th when there isn't a single other way of spending points.
It's not like Enhancements exist or anything.
Oh wait...

PS:

News from Germany

starting with the first 10th edition GT in Germany (Münsterland GT) we will use the following houserules in order to make the game enjoyable for all players:

[Towering] has no impact on measuring line of sights (measure as with every other model)

Wraithknights Heavy Wraithcannons lose the [Devastating Wounds] ability

Fatedice are limited to one dice per unit per phase

[Indirect] fire suffers the same penalty as in 9th edition (-1BS and +1 to save) in addition to any other applicable rules like cover [Stealth], etc. and cannot benefit from the +1 to hit for being [Heavy] when fired without line of sight (model wise)

Thousand Sons “Twist of Fate” Cabal Ritual is modified to “any armour saving throws of the unit are modified by -2” instead

The range of the “Fire Overwatch” stratagem is reduced to 12” and only visible units can be shot

Mortal Wounds from a single unit are capped at 6 MW per unit per phase when targeted at a non-Monster or non-Vehicle unit, any additional wounds e.g. with Assault Canons are then handled as normal (saves can be made etc.)

Models can move over and stay on objectives without limitations (as per 9th)

Lone Operative and similar abilities are subject to investigation of how to fix them best (tbd.)

This should be seen as a first try to restore the fun of Warhammer 40k

So what's the towering change doing? As is towering still requires you to have LOS. Only change they can do is ruins block LOS for towering units...

Bencyclopedia wrote:

I fear I'm going to come across as nitpicky and confrontational but this is just a bad analogy. Porche make cars, GW make miniatures. The 40k app to GW is more akin to a branded keyring to Porche, it is not their core business and it will never get the resource allocation that their core business gets. I'm not saying you have to be happy about it, just that we have to be realistic. Yes the app should be functional, it would be really good if it went beyond that, but expecting Porche quality out of the army building app is naive.

the last time I checked GW also made games and sold them
and having app support for games is standard by now
so unless GW changed and is not selling games any more, having an an army builder for their games is part of their core business

so I guess you are just buying their miniatures to use them with other games and don't play 40k, which is fine
but this is not a reason to say that those that are playing the GW games should not expect the minimum requirements for game support from GW

tneva82 wrote:
So what's the towering change doing? As is towering still requires you to have LOS. Only change they can do is ruins block LOS for towering units...

Towering ignores the Obscuring rule so Towering units are more or less always visible and can always see everything in return. That makes them very powerful because you can't hide form them and Towering units are pretty much always very powerful, well-armed models. It's been called out a few times in early battle reports as a problem, alongside the Devastating Wounds issues.

 kodos wrote:

Bencyclopedia wrote:

I fear I'm going to come across as nitpicky and confrontational but this is just a bad analogy. Porche make cars, GW make miniatures. The 40k app to GW is more akin to a branded keyring to Porche, it is not their core business and it will never get the resource allocation that their core business gets. I'm not saying you have to be happy about it, just that we have to be realistic. Yes the app should be functional, it would be really good if it went beyond that, but expecting Porche quality out of the army building app is naive.

the last time I checked GW also made games and sold them
and having app support for games is standard by now
so unless GW changed and is not selling games any more, having an an army builder for their games is part of their core business

so I guess you are just buying their miniatures to use them with other games and don't play 40k, which is fine
but this is not a reason to say that those that are playing the GW games should not expect the minimum requirements for game support from GW

So you are expecting perfect app from non-software company as a minimum requirement when even dedicated software companies don't do perfect app's...

Okay that's it. You just proved you aren't even trying to be reasonable but just complain for sake of complaining

Pretty much every single software launched has bugs to begin with and that's when whole lifeline of company is making software...

But OK. GW should drop miniatures, outsource them and focus on app then? Lol.

Companies like Microsoft, Nintendo etc aren't meeting your minimum requirement. Lol.

tneva82 wrote:
So you are expecting perfect app from non-software company as a minimum requirement when even dedicated software companies don't do perfect app's...

so we are back to bs arguments to defend GW

I get that GW cannot do anything wrong but this?

ok, so why people expected a working game from a non-gaming company when even the gaming companies don't make perfect games?
so 40k is the best of a game that a non-gaming company can do and we should not expect Mantic Games level rules from a miniature company

I guess GW should just stop making games at all and focus on miniatures to be used in other games if it is only possible to make one thing

Companies like Microsoft, Nintendo etc aren't meeting your minimum requirement. Lol.

I missed that wargame those 2 are making
have link as I am really interested in those games as an alternative to 40k, having an App or not