Set 4 and playtesting

[4242david4242]

Dear WOTC,

I don't expect an answer on any of the following questions, but thinking ahead to the release of Set 4 and the introduction of "battlefield obstacles ... like pillboxes and tank traps," I am anxious that we are on a collision course with even more Errata.

Before Set 4 is on the shelves, please consider the following:

- will any of the tank traps (e.g. hedgehogs) provide cover to soldiers?

- if so, have you limited eligibility for this cover to only certain types of soldiers? I wouldn't recommend we allow cavalry or AT guns to hide behind a couple of I-beams.

- would the cover provided by tank traps realistically be sufficient to justify a sniper's use of Superior Camouflage?

- can Royal Engineers (or similar units) remove/destroy the tank traps?

- will tank traps count as difficult terrain for soldiers moving past them?

- have you limited the ability of certain soldier sub-types (e.g. cavalry) to enter pillboxes?

- have you taken into account how much more effective flamethrowers are against targets that are inside pillboxes?

- will snipers in pillboxes be able to benefit from Superior Camouflage? Unlike a sniper hidden in the woods, their enemies will certainly know where the sniper in the pillbox is located.

- are fighter planes' attacks limited against targets inside pillboxes?

- are pillboxes considered impassable terrain to most/all vehicles?

- can Royal Engineers (or similar units) remove/destroy pillboxes?

- if there are cliffs on the D-Day map, will units on the beach have line of sight to units on top that are a hex or more away from the edge of the cliff?



There are a ton of other questions I could ask, but I don't want to just guess what other kinds of new rules you are introducing in Set 4 and how they will interact with the existing rule set. I just wanted to do my part and point out some potential loopholes before the set is released. Hopefully this is early enough that these kinds of questions will be helpful.

[PatrickWR]

Wow, that's some deep thinkin' at work there.

In fairness to WOTC, I'm sure you've noticed that we have more or less ironed out all the problems with Contested Skies -- before it hit the shelves. A knee-jerk freakout session on the forums can be more beneficial than a ponderous months-long round of playtesting.

[Stojakovic]

Some of those I was thinking about while my teacher was talking about some chemical.

[Joisey]

Wow, that's some deep thinkin' at work there.

In fairness to WOTC, I'm sure you've noticed that we have more or less ironed out all the problems with Contested Skies -- before it hit the shelves. A knee-jerk freakout session on the forums can be more beneficial than a ponderous months-long round of playtesting.
Sorry to burst your bubble there Pat, but the problems with Contested Skies are not even close to being "ironed out".

[PatrickWR]

Sorry to burst your bubble there Pat, but the problems with Contested Skies are not even close to being "ironed out".

Well, the point I was trying to make is that WOTC/AH witnessed the comments/criticism and prepared a "preliminary" errata sheet in just a few weeks, well before Contested Skies hit stores. No reason why we shouldn't expect a similar treatment for any D-Day screwups.

Plus I said "more or less." That leaves a little wiggle room for the HHR to step in. :p

[Grantham]

They did errata out most of the problems in set III. They did leave sevral issues but i think the ones remaining are no worse than the butchering of some units stats we have seen so far. I think it can be played around for the most part but i dont forsee a booming tournment scene among the gronards except tournments based on scnearios. Personaly i hope it lasts long enough for them to fix cards with future sets (magic has many cards reprinted in diffrant sets to keep them type 2 tourny legal)

[Gonash]

Well, in set 4 we might get few "little" thing that are not so real, like getting some cover when it's not suppose or else but that wont be a big deal. The game is not and wont be perfect but the game is and will still be great overall.

I dont think that in every new set we need errata, so set 4 will be just fine and i am sure is well playtested, so no panic from me.

With aircraft in set III we received a few surprise like the jumping motorcycle, or the sig 33 being a great AA tank. WOTC look at it and did an errata that even include a few little thing from other set like the cavalry unit driving jeep. But those problem were kinda huge ! I dont think set 4 will bring as much problem and so everything will be fine.

So we might get another errata when ship will get in the game if some Major problem arise and in that errata we might get a few little old thing fixed but that's it, Dont plan on getting errata afther each set.

[MektonZero]

Dear WOTC,

I don't expect an answer on any of the following questions, but thinking ahead to the release of Set 4 and the introduction of "battlefield obstacles ... like pillboxes and tank traps," I am anxious that we are on a collision course with even more Errata.

Before Set 4 is on the shelves, please consider the following:

- will any of the tank traps (e.g. hedgehogs) provide cover to soldiers?
- if so, have you limited eligibility for this cover to only certain types of soldiers? I wouldn't recommend we allow cavalry or AT guns to hide behind a couple of I-beams.
- would the cover provided by tank traps realistically be sufficient to justify a sniper's use of Superior Camouflage?

If the answer to the first question is no, this all goes away. In practical terms, there just isn't enough cover afforded by hedgehogs to protect someone hiding behind them unless you are talking about one single soldier hiding from one single soldier. Someone else in the squad is going to have enough offset to see around the I-beam.


- can Royal Engineers (or similar units) remove/destroy the tank traps?


Doubtful, it takes either prepared cutting charges which will take more time to plant correctly than a typical scenario lasts or a massive amount of explosives to take out even one hedgehog. Rows of dragon's teeth are going to take hours or days, not minutes, to remove. Barbed wire on the other hand could be cleared pretty quickly.


- will tank traps count as difficult terrain for soldiers moving past them?


There should probably be three types of obstacles, one for Vehicles that can be navigated with a movement roll (hedgehogs) and one that can't be crossed at all (dragon's teeth) which will probably be a scenario rule and one for Soldiers (barbed wire). For simplicity soldiers should be able to ignore Vehicle obstacles but vehicle obstacles should have to make a movement roll to enter a hex containing Soldier obstacles. There shouldn't be anything from preventing both types from being in the same hex.


- have you limited the ability of certain soldier sub-types (e.g. cavalry) to enter pillboxes?
- have you taken into account how much more effective flamethrowers are against targets that are inside pillboxes?
- will snipers in pillboxes be able to benefit from Superior Camouflage? Unlike a sniper hidden in the woods, their enemies will certainly know where the sniper in the pillbox is located.
- are fighter planes' attacks limited against targets inside pillboxes?
- are pillboxes considered impassable terrain to most/all vehicles?
- can Royal Engineers (or similar units) remove/destroy pillboxes?


I would not be surprised if pillboxes simply had a good armor rating and the special abilties of fighting platform and transport. This would take care of all these in one fell swoop. If slightly more complexity is desired, don't count the pillbox itself as a unit for stacking purposes, and give it transport 2.


- if there are cliffs on the D-Day map, will units on the beach have line of sight to units on top that are a hex or more away from the edge of the cliff?


To be as simple as possible I'd rule that the cliff edge hexes be treated as cover hexes from any fire from the lower elevation up to the cliffs and only Soldier units can fire from the cliffs down to the lower elevation.

This will allow natural cuts in cliffs on a map leading down to the bottom and still fairly resolve Line of Sight issues. Firing straight down one of these cuts you won't be crossing a cliff so there won't be any cover and vehicles can fire downward and some of the cut hexsides adjacent to the cliff can be extended so that fire down into the cut from right next to the cliff is treated properly.


There are a ton of other questions I could ask, but I don't want to just guess what other kinds of new rules you are introducing in Set 4 and how they will interact with the existing rule set. I just wanted to do my part and point out some potential loopholes before the set is released. Hopefully this is early enough that these kinds of questions will be helpful.

The KISS principle rules. The more complicated you try to make the rules, the more exceptions you will have to try to iron out later. I'm sure they put a lot more thought into this than either of us, at least we hope they did. :D

But keep asking questions, it's how we figure out stuff, especially stuff we haven't come across yet.

[PatrickWR]

If the answer to the first question is no, this all goes away. In practical terms, there just isn't enough cover afforded by hedgehogs to protect someone hiding behind them unless you are talking about one single soldier hiding from one single soldier. Someone else in the squad is going to have enough offset to see around the I-beam.


Here's something to think about re: tank traps: My guess is that a "tank trap" miniature, like a hedgehog or whatever, represents an entire hex filled with such things. It's not just one single hedgehog -- that would be kind of absurd. At such a scale, it's entirely believable for a 6-man squad to be able to lie prone and get some cover in a hundred square yards choked with such items.

[dracos42]

Wow, that's some deep thinkin' at work there.

In fairness to WOTC, I'm sure you've noticed that we have more or less ironed out all the problems with Contested Skies -- before it hit the shelves. A knee-jerk freakout session on the forums can be more beneficial than a ponderous months-long round of playtesting.


A couple of thoughts I should just get out now. One, I have real concerns about the whole "knee-jerk freakout session" and the coming of the errata. What does this mean, that those who scream the loudest and longest will get their way with the game? Will there be more freakout sessions coming? Should I start taking lessons from my 5 year old niece on how to get my way on the boards? I'm serious. This is something the board members need to think about.

Two, for the HHR guys. I like the idea of making more historical rules for the game. I've been doing it myself at home. My concern here is that the HHR is being to sound like they are the annointed saviours of AAM. In other words, HHR runs the risk of getting full of itself.

Michael Lyons

[Lagduf]

A couple of thoughts I should just get out now. One, I have real concerns about the whole "knee-jerk freakout session" and the coming of the errata. What does this mean, that those who scream the loudest and longest will get their way with the game? Will there be more freakout sessions coming? Should I start taking lessons from my 5 year old niece on how to get my way on the boards? I'm serious. This is something the board members need to think about.

Two, for the HHR guys. I like the idea of making more historical rules for the game. I've been doing it myself at home. My concern here is that the HHR is being to sound like they are the annointed saviours of AAM. In other words, HHR runs the risk of getting full of itself.

Michael Lyons

Can we be for certain that AH/WotC weren't going to institute these rule fixes anyway?

[MektonZero]

Here's something to think about re: tank traps: My guess is that a "tank trap" miniature, like a hedgehog or whatever, represents an entire hex filled with such things. It's not just one single hedgehog -- that would be kind of absurd. At such a scale, it's entirely believable for a 6-man squad to be able to lie prone and get some cover in a hundred square yards choked with such items.

Choked is a little strong of a term, they aren't that many of them. Hedgehog antitank obstacles aren't there to prevent tanks from going through an area. They afford the defender flank shots when the vehicles maneuver around them and slow down the attacker since careful maneuver is a lot slower than a headlong charge across open terrain giving the defender more time to fire. They just aren't dense enough on the ground to afford serious cover, they are designed not to be.

Here is a good example from the Ohama landing site:
http://www80.homepage.villanova.edu/james.dion/images/hedgehogLG.jpg

That cover is pretty darn scarce compared to a typical forest or group of buildings. The other reasons are game ones. If you advanced into a hedgehog hex right in front of the enemy, what incentive would you have to advance rather than just fight from where you are in full cover? It was a prepared killing ground, not a prepared defensive position. The second reason is that treating a hedgehog hex as cover is that wouldn't be able to fire through them, they just aren't that dense.

[4242david4242]

Well, the point I was trying to make is that WOTC/AH witnessed the comments/criticism and prepared a "preliminary" errata sheet in just a few weeks, well before Contested Skies hit stores. No reason why we shouldn't expect a similar treatment for any D-Day screwups.

Plus I said "more or less." That leaves a little wiggle room for the HHR to step in. :p

PatrickWR,

You must agree that it is better for WOTC to not print any "D-Day screwups" so they never have to issue Errata.

[PatrickWR]

PatrickWR,

You must agree that it is better for WOTC to not print any "D-Day screwups" so they never have to issue Errata.

Oh, I certainly agree. But from an Intellectual Property standpoint, the chances of advance rules or a public playtest are pretty slim. Don't get me wrong -- I'd love to put D-Day to the test, but I think in reality we'll have another Contested Skies on our hands: we'll get the new rules a month or two before the expansion hits, analyze them frenetically, and if we uncover some grevious flaws, then WOTC/AH will issue an appropriate errata sheet.

[Joisey]

A couple of thoughts I should just get out now. One, I have real concerns about the whole "knee-jerk freakout session" and the coming of the errata. What does this mean, that those who scream the loudest and longest will get their way with the game? Will there be more freakout sessions coming? Should I start taking lessons from my 5 year old niece on how to get my way on the boards? I'm serious. This is something the board members need to think about.

Two, for the HHR guys. I like the idea of making more historical rules for the game. I've been doing it myself at home. My concern here is that the HHR is being to sound like they are the annointed saviours of AAM. In other words, HHR runs the risk of getting full of itself.

Michael Lyons
I plead guilty to thinking that AAM needs some "saving" from itself with respect to Set III. To my knowledge, no HHR Committee member has ever claimed that HHR is the "only way" to go. Now THAT would be getting full of ourselves.

Likewise, we have a documented history of welcoming the comments and ideas of non-committee members and have implemented alot of them. I invite you to review the thread discussions to verify this yourself. We do restrict voting, but that is more a practical matter than anything else that helps us keep the project moving.

We don't have secret handshakes, secret meetings, use secret code words, wear black robes, or think that we are the last word on the subject matter. We are also not monolithic in our opinions. Again, check out the threads and you will see that we have diverse viewpoints--Set III in particular.

In short, I don't think the "being full of ourselves" charge holds any water---but when I get my invitation to join the Illuminati, I'll be sure to let you know. ;)

[4242david4242]

But from an Intellectual Property standpoint, the chances of advance rules or a public playtest are pretty slim.

***

and if we uncover some grevious flaws, then WOTC/AH will issue an appropriate errata sheet.

I never proposed public playtesting in the true sense of the word. I merely proposed public review of potential new rules well before they are sent to press.

They are marketing issues, not IP issues, that are keeping WOTC from releasing rules in advance. An example of an IP issue would be if WOTC were concerned that a close competitor might catch wind of a new innovation WOTC plans to include in an upcoming set and preemptively release their own version. That isn't the case here. There currently aren't any miniatures games, other than WOTC's other games, that are like AAM. In fact, since the war gaming genre is so old, it is AAM that is heavily borrowing ideas from many war games that have come before. I think the thing that concerns WOTC is the ability to create demand by controlling the flow of information to the customers prior to product launch. That's why we are given "Opening Salvos" that unveil two new figures at a time. If you were correct, wouldn't it be a liability for WOTC to preview any figures before they are released for sale? Likewise, wouldn't it be an even bigger liability for WOTC to reveal the new air rules a full month before Contested Skies goes on sale? In that time, a competitor could have made and started selling their own AAM rulebook or incorporated WOTC's new ideas into their own games. No, it's simply a marketing strategy. WOTC wants to keep us guessing what they will release next. They want us to talk it up on these boards. They want to build anticipation for their next product launch.

But after the debacle with the new air rules, WOTC's secrecy about what is coming next is just going to create more anxiety -- not anticipation. The members of this community have already demonstrated that they want new rules and special abilities to be well thought out. And it's in WOTC's best interest to deliver just that. If WOTC were to release new rules and special abilities for review, without revealing to which units they pertain, then two things would be accomplished: 1) AAM community members could offer feedback and help ensure that the rules and special abilities are well thought-out, and 2) WOTC could still create excitement and anticipation about what units are going to be released next. It's the best of both worlds, if you ask me.


By the way, IMHO, errata aren't always "appropriate" if a game is designed well and thoroughly playtested.

[Joisey]

I have to disagree with that last thought. Some of the best games in the world still have errata sheets. Having errata does not mean a game was not well designed or thought out.

[4242david4242]

Having errata does not mean a game was not well designed or thought out.

er·ra·tum ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-rätm, -r-)
n. pl. er·ra·ta (-t)

"An error in printing or writing, especially such an error noted in a list of corrections and bound into a book."

[Joisey]

er·ra·tum ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-rätm, -r-)
n. pl. er·ra·ta (-t)

"An error in printing or writing, especially such an error noted in a list of corrections and bound into a book."
Webster's aside, Errata sheets in the game publishing industry are used in a wider context, including the use as rules clarifications and interpretations, which are not necessarily due to errors so much as the aggressive tactics of certain "Rules Lawyers" who insist on Boldly Going Where No Rule Has Gone Before! ;)

None of which is meant to excuse WotC in the context of Contested Skies, of course, which blantant air rules gaffes remains solely due to subcontracting the rules to be written by the Mutant Ninja Atomic Monkey Force Team (tm). :)

[PatrickWR]

I think the thing that concerns WOTC is the ability to create demand by controlling the flow of information to the customers prior to product launch. That's why we are given "Opening Salvos" that unveil two new figures at a time.


Good call, I agree here. It's all intended to build the hype. You really nailed me on the IP stuff -- are you a lawyer? :p I know Joisey is...

If you were correct, wouldn't it be a liability for WOTC to preview any figures before they are released for sale? Likewise, wouldn't it be an even bigger liability for WOTC to reveal the new air rules a full month before Contested Skies goes on sale? In that time, a competitor could have made and started selling their own AAM rulebook or incorporated WOTC's new ideas into their own games. No, it's simply a marketing strategy. WOTC wants to keep us guessing what they will release next. They want us to talk it up on these boards. They want to build anticipation for their next product launch.


Ok, trying to follow here, are you suggesting that since WOTC/AH has shown they can release the air rules a month in advance, that they should release these rules perhaps several months in advance, to allow for players/rules lawyers to scrutinize them? Not a bad idea, but also not one I'd expect to see implemented.


But after the debacle with the new air rules, WOTC's secrecy about what is coming next is just going to create more anxiety -- not anticipation.


Sorry, that's definitely your opinion. I for one remain optimistic about the game -- even moreso than normal because of the recent errata sheet and the thriving house rules community on these boards. The game is what you make it -- and I intend to enjoy the hell out of it and look forward to each release like a new Predator movie hitting the theaters. :)

If WOTC were to release new rules and special abilities for review, without revealing to which units they pertain, then two things would be accomplished: 1) AAM community members could offer feedback and help ensure that the rules and special abilities are well thought-out, and 2) WOTC could still create excitement and anticipation about what units are going to be released next. It's the best of both worlds, if you ask me.

For sure! I can only hope they dole out a few goodies this way...just the "trouble units" really, the ones that might create some problems.

[NEVjr]

Webster's aside, Errata sheets in the game publishing industry are used in a wider context, including the use as rules clarifications and interpretations, which are not necessarily due to errors so much as the aggressive tactics of certain "Rules Lawyers" who insist on Boldly Going Where No Rule Has Gone Before! ;)

None of which is meant to excuse WotC in the context of Contested Skies, of course, which blantant air rules gaffes remains solely due to subcontracting the rules to be written by the Mutant Ninja Atomic Monkey Force Team (tm). :)

it is impossible to release units before all the units are released and not need some kind of errata IMHO, air rules built into set 1 cards would have simply confused alot of people, this way, its like training rules, you play with set 1 for a while and get the rules down, then you add set 2 and get some more rules for paras and snipers, then you get planes, then you get emplacments like pill boxes, and so on, it gradually builds up the rules, and it means you need to adjust previous rules

[NorthernRommel]

it is impossible to release units before all the units are released and not need some kind of errata IMHO....., air rules built into set 1 cards would have simply confused alot of people, this way, its like training rules, you play with set 1 for a while and get the rules down

Its not impossible, just difficult to release the unit stats without causing a fuss with the marketing weasels that put the dollar over quality. Only forseeable problems are.......

1) The company would have some serious explaining to do when it comes
to changing future rules. Not necessarily a bad thing, except maybe for the marketing department.

2) They have learned well that withholding information helps them CYA and also allows building of hype that sells more product.

3) IF they are already testing things several releases ahead then they no doubt have all those unit stats and SAs already defined.

If the simplistic rules confuse people even at their current stage then it is more a comment on the way the rules were badly presented. To be fair some people learn slower then others, but the little kids locally seemed to have no problem with it. So thats a straw argument.

[MektonZero]

it is impossible to release units before all the units are released and not need some kind of errata IMHO, air rules built into set 1 cards would have simply confused alot of people, this way, its like training rules, you play with set 1 for a while and get the rules down, then you add set 2 and get some more rules for paras and snipers, then you get planes, then you get emplacments like pill boxes, and so on, it gradually builds up the rules, and it means you need to adjust previous rules

Learning in stages was also a hallmark of Squad Leader. One scenario at a time with a few new rules for each.

Strangely enough I don't recall any demands to lynch the staff of Avalon Hill when Cross of Iron almost completely rewrote the vehicle rules from Squad Leader. Hell, it went on to become the gold standard for small unit wargames instead of being critisized for the changes that were made or for the fact that changes had to be made at all.

[Photoner Hawkwind]

when I get my invitation to join the Illuminati, I'll be sure to let you know. ;)

Have you laid any bricks recently? :D

[Richter von Manthofen]

Boys! err Men!- We do not know the mechanics now, why do you assume they are screwed. Only because all new rules were screwed until now ;) - NO ignore this.

For CS we got nice errata, but the mechanic in itself was quite OK. I am still not happy about the PTs, BAR, Snipers, but I can live with them, The same gose for the US superiority and the Axis weakness considering low (rear) armor for most tanks and high point costs. The game is intended to be simple. It is - AND it is still fun to play.

Please wait until we get the previews and then rant, not before please.

[Vulturedoodle]

Two, for the HHR guys. I like the idea of making more historical rules for the game. I've been doing it myself at home. My concern here is that the HHR is being to sound like they are the annointed saviours of AAM. In other words, HHR runs the risk of getting full of itself.

Michael Lyons
Would I be out of order to ask the point of this troll? How does HHR getting full of itself matter? Don't like their rules...don't use them. Don't agree with some of their ideas, post alternatives. They're very open to criticism, IMO.

Regards,
Steve F.

[4242david4242]

Good call, I agree here. It's all intended to build the hype. You really nailed me on the IP stuff -- are you a lawyer? :p

Why do you ask? Do I come across as a "rules lawyer"? LOL! Well, you caught me. When I'm not playing AAM, I'm an IP lawyer.


Ok, trying to follow here, are you suggesting that since WOTC/AH has shown they can release the air rules a month in advance, that they should release these rules perhaps several months in advance, to allow for players/rules lawyers to scrutinize them?

That's precisely what I am suggesting. Not only would this cost WOTC nothing to implement, it would actually save them money. The people on these boards would work (for FREE) on trying to find problems with an upcoming rule. And if more wrinkles are ironed out of the rules pre-production, then WOTC wont have to spend as much time and money: dealing with grouchy post-release fans, writing errata, or printing additional booster inserts for future sets.

It's just a fact of life that, no matter how hard you have worked on something you wrote, there always seem to be hidden assumptions you didn't realize you made or there are typos the sneak in that change the meaning in unintended ways. And the more people that review/proofread your writing the higher the odds of those hidden assumptions being brought to light and those typos being noticed. Let me be clear, I'm not saying that WOTC's game developers are doing a terrible job or that they are deficient in anyway. Everyone's writing, including my own, is affected by this stuff. I have spent umpteen hours (and charged clients umpteen dollars) to write some things, yet many times it takes a co-worker -- reading through my work just once -- to find a problem. Sometimes they find something minor like a typo. But sometimes they find a radically different way to interpret the words I had written. This is a direct consequence of the complexity of the English language. In addition to these kinds of issues, WOTC has to deal with an ever expanding array of special abilities and rules. To make matters even more complicated, I imagine WOTC has to deal with limited budgets, fast moving production deadlines, having to seek approval from many different departments, etc. Who knows, maybe the AAM developers also have to work on other things while they are developing AAM.

My point is just that this community can be an invaluable resource if the AAM developers allowed it to be. By providing these discussion forums for us, WOTC has shown that it thinks this community has at least some value. My question is: then why not take this to the next level? Why not utilize this community's full potential, cut production costs, and create an even better product? All at the same time! AAM is already a fantastic game! But it's my opinion that public review of new rules and special abilities will make it even better.

[4242david4242]

As many on this thread have pointed out, WOTC can use errata to fix any problems after-the-fact. But WOTC's stated goal is to make AAM a simple game to learn and to play. If players have to refer to multiple sources in order to understand how the rules work, then the game is not all that "simple," IMHO. For those of us that started playing AAM from the beginning, it really isn't that big of a deal to print out the Errata after each new set is released. But we should think about the bigger picture. This model would mean that, in a few year's time 1) players will have to read and cross-reference many different sources in order to play this "simple" game (c.p. Star Wars Miniatures), or 2) WOTC will have to spend money reprinting rulebooks and stat cards that could be spent on additional AAM expansions.

Perhaps I'm just paranoid and all of my concerns are overblown. But can anyone offer me a drawback to public review of upcoming rules and special abilities before they are printed? I can only think of benefits. Even if I am completely wrong, this would still be a way for WOTC to create excitement about AAM during the lull between sets.

[Redgar]

Personally, I love the idea. But, you asked for a drawback, so here is my offer ;):

1. Potential lost revenue, due to weaker marketing punch come release time. Don't give people time to rationally think about how many of what type of units they'll need.... Yes, you mention disassociating rules from units, but then how can the rules capture units' flavours? Most combos rely on knowing at least unit type, speed, and attack; the rules on they're own aren't necessarily broken. Also, many complaints are about historical accuracy... is the "highly flammable" objected to because it's a bad rule, or because it was unequally applied?

And, as a bonus:

2. Loss of control, combined with inability to change the rules. WotC is playtesting more that a couple sets ahead as is. It can be scary for a large corporation to feel that it isn't in complete control of a project, and if there are large issues, the best they can do is offer errata. Which is how it works now.

Anyway, I still like the idea, and hope there is an opportunity for something like this (DDM has a DDM advisory council made up of some of the top players/collectors; they get preview stuff, playtest and provide feedback... perhaps an AAM Advisory Council wouldn't go astray?)

Just my 2 ep worth,

Redgar

[4242david4242]

1. Potential lost revenue, due to weaker marketing punch come release time. Don't give people time to rationally think about how many of what type of units they'll need.... Yes, you mention disassociating rules from units, but then how can the rules capture units' flavours? Most combos rely on knowing at least unit type, speed, and attack; the rules on they're own aren't necessarily broken. Also, many complaints are about historical accuracy... is the "highly flammable" objected to because it's a bad rule, or because it was unequally applied?

I think it is safe to assume that only a small percentage of all of the AAM players are active on these boards. So even if there is a "weaker marketing punch come release time" it will only effect a small percentage of WOTC's customers. You could just as well make this argument against the "Opening Salvos." The more figures we see previewed, the fewer figures we are completely surprised about when we open our booster packs. I wont pretend to be a marketing expert, but I can't imagine that public review of potential new rules would reduce AAM's "marketing punch." But I would be willing to bet that the long term benefit of publishing iron clad rules would far outweigh any loss of "marketing punch."

You make a good point about the problem with disassociating rules from units. It does make it a little more difficult to determine whether a new rule really works well with the existing rules, but I don't think it is fatal. Consider "Transport," for example. You didn't need to know that the halftracks got Transport in order to see that the way the rules were written would allow cavalry to ride on vehicles. Or how about "Rocket Salvo"? Whether its a truck, or a halftrack, or a plane that is going to have this ability in the next set, we don't need to know what vehicles have Rocket Salvo in order to raise concerns over unlimited rocket ammo. Just reading the wording of these rules, completely out of context of which units will get those abilities, is enough to generate discussion and possibly raise issues that may not have occurred to the developers otherwise.

In re historical accuracy, I can't really comment too much. I'm a gamer first and an historical enthusiast second. The more realistic the better, but I'm no authority on whether a certain tank deserves 5 rear defense rather than 4. But I would imagine that, even without knowing which units will be released next, the historians among us will chime in and let us know the kinds of units that deserve/don't deserve the abilities being reviewed. This could still be valuable, albeit indirect, feedback that the developers could use to think about specific upcoming units.


2. Loss of control, combined with inability to change the rules. WotC is playtesting more that a couple sets ahead as is. It can be scary for a large corporation to feel that it isn't in complete control of a project, and if there are large issues, the best they can do is offer errata. Which is how it works now.

Even if WOTC said "alright customers, it is up to you to come up with new special abilities," WOTC would still be in control of this game's development. Nothing will change the fact that they're the one's with their fingers on the print button -- not us. In any event, it is WOTC's choice to offer new rules and special abilities for our review. They would certainly be in control of what is being reviewed, if anything. And if they didn't like the community's consensus on a particular rule, it would still be WOTC's call to decide what to finally publish. So I don't see any loss of control problems with what I am proposing.

Moreover, even if WOTC permitted us to review rules and offer feedback, that's not to say they still couldn't issue errata. My point is just that the more scrutiny that has been given to new rules, the less they will need to issue errata (or as much of it).

[Bobsalt]

A couple of thoughts I should just get out now. One, I have real concerns about the whole "knee-jerk freakout session" and the coming of the errata. What does this mean, that those who scream the loudest and longest will get their way with the game? Will there be more freakout sessions coming? Should I start taking lessons from my 5 year old niece on how to get my way on the boards? I'm serious. This is something the board members need to think about.

I think a lot of the complaining here on the boards was justified, based on the rules that we saw. Granted, much of the complaining was considerably lacking in tact, and some of it even devolved into personal attacks, and there was certainly no excuse for that. Be that as it may, in my opinion the gist of the complaints were correct in what they were saying – the proposed rules did give, frankly, the impression that very little thought went into them. I think it’s very much to WotC’s credit that they released the errata before the product released. While I would have VERY much preferred that board members would have remembered their manners in their complaints, I do feel that even if the rhetoric in their posts was inappropriate, the very negative reaction to the new rules was completely appropriate.

Having said that, I have to agree with you that we shouldn’t be complaining about Set IV based on what the rules may contain, or what units may be included. It’s one thing to complain about a rule set that’s been posted by the publisher online; it’s quite another to complain about a product of which we know next to nothing. Given the fact there were rules issues with both Set II and III, I can see why some people are pessimistic about Set IV, but I don’t think that warrants pushing the panic button without even knowing anything about it.

Two, for the HHR guys. I like the idea of making more historical rules for the game. I've been doing it myself at home. My concern here is that the HHR is being to sound like they are the annointed saviours of AAM. In other words, HHR runs the risk of getting full of itself.

Michael Lyons

Would I be out of order to ask the point of this troll? How does HHR getting full of itself matter? Don't like their rules...don't use them. Don't agree with some of their ideas, post alternatives. They're very open to criticism, IMO.

Regards,
Steve F.

I can only speak for myself, but as an HHR Committee member, I have to say I don’t see myself as the “anointed savior” of A&AM or anything else for that matter (I personally have it on good authority that the position of Savior was permanently filled about 2000 years ago… :) ). My view is that A&AM is a pretty good game with some peculiar quirks. I think some of the things in the game are very good, some of things are things I can live with, and some things are…well…less than good. My goal on HHR is to help produce a set of revised rules that reduce what I and many others feel are the more “kiddie” aspects of the game, and inject a little more of a tactical flavor. I don’t for a minute think this makes the game “better”, because what one person thinks is “better” may be completely different from what some one else thinks is “better.” If you check out some of the discussions in the HHR threads, I think you’ll find that there is a quite often considerable difference in viewpoint as to what is “better.”

I do think, though, that the HHR rules are for the most part more “realistic” than the standard rules. Someone who wants A&AM to play more like a traditional wargame will probably like HHR; someone who prefers what appears to be the more freewheeling approach of a collectible game probably won’t. And that’s the beauty of HHR – its there for those who want it; those who don’t like it can just ignore it.

As far HHR being “full of itself”, again, I can only speak for myself. If it were just five of us ruling by decree from Mount Olympus “this is how it shall be”, I’d agree with you. However, all discussions are open, and any and all are welcome to throw their thoughts in on every discussion. Yes, only 5 of us get to make an official vote on what goes into HHR, but that is more to keep things moving and not get forever bogged down without making a decision. I don’t think the 5 of us on the HHR Committee have any special “anointing” to make rulings – frankly, I don’t think HHR would be possible without all of the input we get from everyone here on the boards. Personally, I take the input of everyone who contributes to the HHR threads very seriously, and try to weigh everyone’s comments before I vote on a proposal. The reason for that is very simple – a lot of the people posting on the HHR discussions are much more knowledgeable than I am, and I want to know what those people think before I make a vote.

I know for a fact that Joisey and I will disagree considerably when the issue of anti-aircraft rules comes up. When that discussion occurs, though, I know a lot of people are going to weigh in with their thoughts, comments, opinions (and threats?), etc. Ultimately, though, it isn’t going to be Joisey, myself, or any other one person who will make the final decision as to what the HHR anti-aircraft rules will be – ultimately it will be the members of this board who will determine what they will be by submitting their input to be considered, discussed, and hashed through. I may well change my position after a well-reasoned post – it’s happened before, because, as I said, a lot of people on here know a lot more than I do.

Believe me, I don’t think anyone on HHR has any delusions of grandeur. I hope you’ll try participating in a few discussions yourself. If you do, I think you’ll see that none of us thinks we are going to “save “ A&AM from itself. We’re just trying to provide an alternative for those who want a different experience than the basic game offers. And personally, I think giving a player some alternatives is a good thing.

[Muenchausen]

Very informative discussion by Redgar and 4242David.

The one question I have is why did WOTC/AH post errata changing the rules to set III. Was it because of all the up roar and negative publicity on the AAM community web site? Was it because of the threats from people stating they were getting out of the game? Were they, WOTC/AH concerned about loss in sales? Or did they actually agree that they released the rules to soon and didn't properly play test and therefor, attempted to correct the problems. I don't know if we'll ever get an answer to these questions.

[Joisey]

Have you laid any bricks recently? :D
I don't get it. Are you referring to the Masons?