"J-P spells it out so you better shut up and pay up" Topic

I am not on the BF forums where asking for errata and models that are well made is apparently "negative" but I was sent this copy of J-P's post below:

"I am sorry to dissapoint you but there is no way what you are suggesting is possible. You cant just "tidy up" 2000+ pages of lists for a period and certainly not in three months. Can you imagine the back-lash from our 1000+ stores when we tell them we are just tweaking the books a little to fix the imperfections so that the copies you have are ok and do 98% of the job but somebody might ask for the new one and so we will re-print all the books. What follows is a swap of books on a scale you cannot imagine and all to try and make the lists "perfect". The real problem is whose perfect do we make it to? You do not have to be in the industry the 22 years I have to work out that this plan might have a slight flaw or two in it.

FOW is an evolving game and LW an evolving period. As we move further through the timeline we look at new ideas and try and find the exciting units and moments to focus on. We do this becuase the game is about colour and fun and giving people choice not making every force perfectly balanced with every other one. This might seem like an odd statement but I think we have a controlling factor that no other game has, Phil. The points system in FOW has kept the game balanced for the most part for ten years. This is becasue Phil had a points matrix right at the start and although we have tweaked it as time has gone on the principles of how things are pointed works. Special rules despite seeming numerous are for the most part re-wording of rules with mechanics we have been using since the first book came out which once again has been going on a while and suggests it is not nearly as "broken" as some might suggest.

What you each would like to see "fixed" is always something we are interested in and whether it is the rules or lists we keep revision files from the second anything gets printed. Phil actually had a 4th Ed folder before 3rd was finsihed with ideas we had too late or could not test in time to go inot the current version. Lists are no different and every writer on the planet in the hobby industry, not just Phil, Wayne and Mike, will tell you that with a little more time and a little more testing it could have been better. Then they think of a great idea or find some new research just after it goes to the printer and although this is how the creative process works it is not how business works. I have a window of time set aside for a book, 16 weeks ususally, we go through the research and testing process its gets edited and then sent to the printer to then goes on sale. This happens five times a year and with the time and resources we have we do the best job we can each and every time.

As a gamer I too would like to everythig to be perfect, I would like to never loose a game to a rule/unit that seemed broke, never think that the list I have chosen is less comptetive than others and never be forced to pick one list over another just becasue my chance of winning is greately reduced with some choice over another. This is me the gamer talking and my pleasure in the hobby is impacted by all of these things. Me the business owner wants all of these things as well but also knows the world is not that easy to bring round to your way of thinking, even when you are the owner, so I put my trust in others and surround myself with the best people I can find to do the job who put their absolute all into bringing you the product we make whether it is the FOW, GF9 or the WI teams. There is no more I can do and at the end of the day a decade of quality products speaks for itself.

Our forums of late have been somewhat dominated by an overly "negative" tone and the abuse gamers are giving each other and attacks on my staff have given me pause to think about what our "company" forum (as opposed to indenpendant ones) is for and how they should work and this is definitely something we will be discussing in the coming weeks as I am unhappy with their current state and will not let the situation continue. Definitely time for a change."

Has anyone told J-P that WWII is a finite subject and that maybe it IS worth the time to get things right for your customers if you want them to contuinue playing your rules and buying your models Or is he thinking we will all follow toa new period or fantasy real out of loyalty to the BF HOBBY? Is he really saying don't wiorry about the stuff you have jsut bought if it is out of date later in the year – we have new shiney stuff coming just keep spending on the new stuff, why? because thats the way we CHOOSE to run our business.

I know I said this was how BF were going back in Jan 2012 but it is stunning to see it in black and white from the MD himself.
Nobody can say they were not told now

British.
Armoured.
Regiment.

All them negative waves…

You know, I can understand the CEO of an automotive company employing 120,000 people, or of an oil company doing $300 USD billion in business being arrogant.
But the chief cook and bottle washer of a wargaming company????
Talk about a big fish in a small pond.

Well it's not like we didn't know he was an arrogant ***** is it?
Give them 6 months at the outside before they do a GW and shut their forums down.

All I have to say is… Bolt Action, faster (and better) service, good models, polite staff.

I haven not seen this on the FoW forums…..hmmm.

Can really blame them, why pay for the forums if you feel you are getting trashed constantly? Of course the nearly free feedback might be welcomed in some companies…..

So, I assume this means any hope of an opportunity fire rule during your opponents' movement is right out.

I feel sorry for the guys working for BF who are okay guys but have to put up with these sort of statements from your CEO. I can't imagine he is the sort of person you could suggest not to post this sort of stuff.

Cheers
Kieran

Up until recently I was involved as play tester and towards the end held the role of a lead playtester for our Playtest Group.

I can assure you all that while no playtest process is perfect, Battlefront does a solid job ensuring that their lists are tested out the wazoo, and they have a very thorough testing period on all their books. That includes a lot of very capable players trying their best to "break" a list. The only list that has gone to the printers that was trouble from the word go was the BAR.

I should do a AMA like on reddit…except the playtest process just isn't that interesting…

Perakkir who was involved in the play testing indicated the play test process changed for the worse.

I'm sorry but the lack of balance with latest US lists, TD rules and BAR as well as mistakes with points in a number of books (especially Red Bear/Grey Wolf) indicates poor playtesting or that playtesting results are ignored.

IMHO it didn't change for the worst, but I totally get where he's coming from.

That's just sad.

McWong73; could you please expand?

We've seen a decline in rules quality. Is BF ignoring playtesters?

I've heard that they ignored playtesters for heavy BM-31 Katyusha points and the BAR.

But when they bundle all the soft cover books into the hardcover compilations, all your problems are solved!

But when they bundle all the soft cover books into the hardcover compilations, all your problems are solved!

But are they ? Just take a look at Grey Wolf and Red Bear ?


LES

ThomasHobbes, I still respect the NDA I signed so am not entirely comfortable getting in to specifics.

One thing I would point out is that a large number of players do a surface read of history and think that because unit X performed so well that they should be given better ratings, or should have certain special rules apply. To me this always seemed to encourage lazy play – many of these units were often no better than any other, but they had better leadership – the role you as a player are meant to bring to the table. I have always been against building in tabletop success into a list, that's the players job.

There was a lot of discussion about the BAR – I wasn't across the BM31 situtation so can't really comment. Ever since V1 however the early war period has been a real clanger to sort out using the points formulae and it wasn't a surprise to players who remember the old, old EW pdf's from 2001 – 2002 that the points cost for a single conf/vet DAK MG team was higher than the points for a Vickers tank.

Well those books are less susceptible to falling apart physcially, though some of the lists fall apart due to poor editing and construction. :P

I see nothing especially objectionable there. They are a company – they make product. They have to keep a product cycle going. Considering the genrally high quality of the material they produce and free rulebook that they have provided between editions in the past, I think BF are actually quite classy about changing editions. Do GW give you a free copy of the new 40K if you take your old version in to a store?

If you want nice, shiny, full colour books, you have to expect that the company producing them will want to get it's pound of flesh, which means more product at higher prices and a constant revision cycle. That's how you move up from a stapled yellow card cover and photocopied pages to a full colour glossy hardback.

On the matter of negative comments in the forum, personal attacks against staff members or other forum users should, of course, never be tolerated. Criticism of the product, however, is to be expected. If it's unreasonable or factually inaccurate then repudiate it. If they are calling you a poopy head because your game is stupid, well… trolls will troll.

G.

G.

Games Workshop at least provided you with an errata for V6.

Also one can expect to buy a Games Workshop boxset and expect reasonable quality (I only ever had issues twice).

That is no longer the case with Battlefront (I'm even getting replacement miniatures with the same faults as the original ones).

Free rulebook was welcome (thye also did this with V1 to V2 change). But it's nothing when compared to all the issues that are arising with both rules and miniatures.

Batlefront is not GW though, and doesn't have the resources or budgets that they do to fund dev and production. I'm not defending BF, just pointing out something that gets lost in these discussions.

The issue is mistakes are getting more and more common. It would appear someone somewhere is dropping the ball.

GW is terrible at balancing things for the same reasons BF is starting to have issues with (too many special rules, points adjustments/errors across books). But errata to bring things up to new edition levels is welcome.

A 16 week turnaround on a book does not strike me as being sufficiently long enough for play testing. It strikes me as more of a "let me know about any obvious flaws before it hits the printer, because it is already in the que to be printed." At five books a year, they are counting on their target market to be (IMHO) suckers. If folks are happy with that, fine and good for them and BF. In my experience some people--meaning people who used to be fans--are tired of BF's business as usual and are moving on to other rules. As far as the forum goes, it is their forum and they have the right to shut it down or delete negative posts as they feel the need.

"an evolving game"usually equals "not thought through"

Playtesting definitely occurs well before it hits the printer, and involves successive rounds of testing as the draft evolves. A compilation book (based on previous releases) is fairly straight forward to test, but books for new periods/campaigns are longer. Testing for new rules editions goes on for a very long time, and it usually burns out a lot of testers. The testing, and reporting of those tests, is very robust and there are no attempts to force certain outcomes though there is no guarantee that everyone sees eye to eye on some issues.

Books, books, books! You could build a bunker out of all the books!

McWong there is a difference between playtesting of ideas and drafting, and implementing concepts and the subsequent proofreading If there is an error made in the latter then the errata ahould be issued free of charge and in a timely manner.
It is this that is causing most of the angst along with the QC issues that have been ongoing for years now.

Shooting the messenger because some people apparently made personal attacks – BTW I have yet to see written evidence of one of these vicious troll attacks on a BF staffer – is rather shortsighted.

Hey TT, good points all. I am definitely not here to defend BF, can I just make that clear (I'm a FORMER play tester). I can't comment on the release of an errata as that isn't a decision a play tester would have anything to do with. I haven't been on the FoW forums in a very long time, so I won't comment on that side of the discussion either! I do recall the BAR situation though, and that was resolved fairly well?

From my experience it was rare that you would be presented with just ideas or concepts to test. It happened with the testing of V3 (which had some very wild ideas during its development), but usually you were given a draft of an army list that already had a lot of work done. The BF developers would be very open and accomodating of the problems that were identified in playtesting and they would be corrected in subsequent test drafts. However testing doesn't find everything, which is true of almost any product release in any industry.

I also suspect, especially after having been involved with FoW in the way I was, that we all need to dial back our expectations a wee bit. BF, Privateer, Mongoose etc are all small businesses by any measure.

If you feel the game is broken, why do not you try to fix it with your own home rules? After all, it's your game. Except if you are in the tournament circuit, it shouldn't be a problem to fix army lists to fit your idea of balance.

So if playtesting is so rigorous how come they screw the pooch so much on things like BM-31s (insanely overcosted) or tank destroyers (insanely undercosted) or original BAR (completely overpowered)?

As for giving BF some slack, they charge top dollar for their product. Hence the consumer wants value for money.

It's like buying an el cheapo car over a sports car. You expect a lot more out of a $200,000 USD sports car than a $10,000 USD buzz box.

I think the BAR is a fair criticism. Wasn't involved in the BM31, but the tank destroyers you're talking about – this the TD company that recently came out?

wow makes me glad I jumped off the FoW bandwagon before it jumped the shark

Just one thing to remember – J-P said on a recent podscast they produce 70,000 units a month – at an average of say US$15 – allowing for boxes and blisters that an annual turnover US$12m – not a small company by wargaming standards – maybe tiny compared with GW or Exxon I agree LOL
There are many posts still saying cut them a break they are small and need our help. No my local Deli is small and needs my help BF is a large business

McWong73:

Yes it is about new TD units in DC/BGG. They not only were increased in capability due to V3 special rules and increase to AT13 but also went down in points when compared to Turning Tide book:

TT CT Hellcats 320pts AT12
BGG CT Hellcats 315pts AT13

But they're still a small company. And there's nothing special about being a wargames company when it comes to the nuts and bolts of running a business. So they may look big to us as hobbyists, but to the rest of the world they're still a small company, albeit with products with global reach.

Definitely agree however that they should still be held to the same standards as anyone else we buy things from.

If you don't like it don't buy it…

Late War has a particular problem, whilst the Allied system beat the German one Allied kit in NW Europe is not as good as german kit.

There are some ways round this, you could give the allies ten Shermans for every Panther, then the game becomes a traffic jam., you could give the allies lots of off table artillery so that the Germans just get blown away when they are discovered,, you could have the Allies with double air support guaranteed each move, you could have the German tanks break down (run dry) on a skill test each move. All those would be historically accurate rules which would give the allies a fair crack.
BF have , however chosen to balance the LW game by making TDs cheaper and more effective. That has apparently offended some of you here, but that solution does, at least make a more balanced game.
I always have my suspicions about LW because it is the era par excellence of those who love Germans in invulnerable tanks with irresistible weapons and black and silver uniforms.. I do wonder why they don't find Early war so attractive, racing through France in a panzer II??
So BF's solution is not the most 'realistic'? Maybe so , but it has a less negative game impact than the realistic fixes I describe above.
Once you start playing a game that is 1?100 for the models and yet has 155mm artillery on the table realism is out of the window and its just a game.
So can the anti BF crew just lighten up?? The BF crew rescued WW2 wargaming fro being either a skirmish game or the mass cockroach attack of 1/300th.
Good for them.
Roy

Too late Ben already bought it – now they are saying sorry we got it wrong – heres a better version you can buy it again – yup the new version is not quite right either but hey we will publish a fix book with different errors in it and ………..you guessed it you can buy it again.
This is army lists not rules and errors not balance changes
Now you don't like the prices and the poor qulaity of our products well no problem you can buy elesewhere but you are no longer welcome at our comps or forums
After all it is cheaper to do that than fix our quality control
Sound familier?
No its not Chyrsler

I'm still waiting for replacement parts from Battlefront for missing items in a blister from July.

If ever somebody argued about active eugenics and genetic modifications, the removal of that bit in humans that make them stand in line for days for a new iPhone is top of my list.

There is no excuse if you go the FOW path and get burned at some time. There are lots of miniature alternatives, many excellent rule sets with a wide range of approaches from simple fun beer and pretzel games to "every rivet counts" monsters. There is more variety, quality and choice than ever before in wargaming.

(unquestioning) Brand loyalty is for suckers …

They don't like being told they are wrong:

They sent the list to some top players in the US to get the kinks out before they hit the press. They responded "yeah even our weakest member could rolfstomp everything he came near…this list is ****ing broken. It's like trying to catch air!"

BF's reponse…fire the playtesters.

I can't confirm this personally, but I've been told by various sources the person in charge for BG&G was a big big big American fan, and felt the Germans needed a good thrashing.

The fact I heard this from a trusted source in the know, kinda tells me where this is all heading.

Thinkin' it's time for even me (a once big BF fanboy/defender) to look for greener pastures.

Gee and everyone asked me why I sold of my FOW Armies late last year, and went back to 20mm in WWII and a different rule system. You could see this coming 3 years ago, based on what their responses were to all the issues at that time.

I can't confirm this personally, but I've been told by various sources the person in charge for BG&G was a big big big American fan, and felt the Germans needed a good thrashing.

Without having any "inside contacts", all I will say is that I felt that that book is the Yankee's Revenge, for having to face Tigers with Lees in Tunisia.

The TD rules are just plain …weird. I thought that trucks magically disappearing was odd, but this is even worse. And I play Yanks.

Isn't this the same person who made the "battlefront miniatures only" announcement?

If battlefront has a problem; I think I just found it. Time for a new spokesperson methinks.

Just curious: what's the problem with the TD rules that broke the game so much?

As someone who uses tank destroyers, I almost feel guilty using them.
They appear magically, with some niggling caveats about closeness to enemy forces. You can usually appear on a flank or in the rear of enemy tanks, and get a full rate of fire, with an AT of 13. 14 if you have the M36 Jackson.
You can have a Tank destroyer company of 3 platoons, with a Corps support Jackson.
Theoretically, you can bring in 4 platoons of 4 TDs in a turn. Magically, within a command radius of your "security team". You can even bring them in the turn after that team has been wiped out.
If you just bring them on and do not move, you can theoretically get 36 shots at an AT of 13, and 12 at 14.

Not that I have been able to pull it off, but I am not that good a player. Seeing these in the hands of a skilled player would give me nightmares if I were a German.

I won't say that they broke the game, since I do not play tournaments. However, I have heard that the Fall-In torunament organizers have had to nake a special plea for Axis players. I wonder why?
There ARE counters to the tank destroyers, of course. Like surviving the initial volley and shooting back. However, TDs are reconnaissance units, and get to run away if shot at.

So, if someone intimates that "someone" had a big problem with Germans and wanted to give the Americans revenge, I believe it.

FoW has always been a fantasy game and is becoming ever more so. Either accept it for that and enjoy it or get into a proper set of WW2 rules.

John, you left out the best part.

The friggin towed one's can fly around and then decloak DUG IN! Hell you could park near a camper platoon on an objective with somewhere close to 10 teams…and use any one of them to lift g2g on several platoons then blast the bejesus out of them.

I'm under the know that the top UK players are ALL building US TD lists. I ran into one of them at the GT here and he told me upfront "I'm taking the most broken version of this possible, to prove a point." He had complete control of the board, and it was like he was toying with me before eventually killing me off.

It's a broken list, that turns people off to tournaments and LW in general. Just wait for the MW version which I'm sure is coming…

I was re-reading "Alamo in the Ardennes", and "A Time for Trumpets" recently.
The "runup" to Bastogne had some of the most iconic proper and doctrinally pure uses of Tank destryers with the various Teams.
Obviously, the authors had never played FoW, or the TDs would have put in much more dramatic appearances.

So, what IS "the most broken version"? Three platoons of M18s plus the Jackson from Corp Support? Perhaps, there is a more subtle verson that my inexperience cannot grasp until shown.
Add P-47s with "re-roll until you get it right" Air Support?

I prefer the M18 over the M10 because if anyone shoots at me, it goes straight to Firepower, bypassing AT vs Armor. I may as well take something fast.

"The friggin towed one's can fly around and then decloak DUG IN!"

How do they manage that one Dale? (Unless you start them in ambush that is when the rest of your army is in prepared positions.)

You can of course dig them post decloak, but that's not the same thing as they'll obviously lose a shot. People been BS'ing you again?

This guy decloaked his Tank Destroyers and claimed them dug in, I don't have the book…he said he was one of the best players in the UK, I think his name was Roger or something.

It's not the Jackson you had to watch out for it's the Hellcats with their fast range. They'll get around you no….problem.

I still think it's pretty BS that you can spring them magically outside of your deployment zone, and then DIG them in, even if I turned out to be mistaken about them starting dug in.