Playtest rules - a big thank you!

[locarno24]

I have to say I'm very happy and I'm very glad Matt & Co. did what they did.

Playtesting with a small team is next to impossible, and almost as soon as you release a book someone will find the broken combination you never thought of and spend the next 8,000,000 years slagging you off on....well, on forums like this one.

This time round, we saw the odds and ends and get to point out rough edges - which the sheer volume of stuff garuanteed there would be - and as noted, if we didn't point something out, we're at fault too.

Mongoose and their business of playtesters* is still at liberty to ignore any suggestion, but the advantage of this sort of playtesting is that we can ask them why they made such and such a decision before the book disappears into the printers for publishing, before rules become irrevocable, and before they forget why they decided things - and we have the option to put in assorted ideas that they might not have thought of.

Again, thanks.


* apparently the collective noun for mongoose. You learn something new every day.

 

[Foxmeister]

It'd be nice to be sure that each fleet is properly represented as well.

You should bear in mind that P&P is not supposed to be ACTA 3rd Edition. So whilst we can hope for lots of things, the reality is that it will mostly be a few tweaks here and there and a couple of nice additions.

However, I see no reason why we can't have some sort of "living" errata to the fleet lists where more than a handful of ships can be targeted. I'm thinking of ships like the Octurion, or the Shadow Omega, which currently don't appear to be getting any P&P love. In fact, I'd prefer it if P&P just contained the new ships and all the existing ships that are being adjusted in P&P were errata'd in this way.

Regards,

Dave

 

[Da Boss]

Sort of agreed - although given the space taken up it would nice to have the years updates summed up in books like P+P?