As we playtested, we were also encouraged to ask questions about the rules so that they could be clarified if needed. Most of the time, clarifications could not fit on cards that contained the rules and needed to be put in the rules insert as clarifications. However, there was a strict page limit, so we had to help decide how to make things clear without being overly wordy. If those turned out to still be misinterpreted, they could always be included in the FAQ since that is a digital version of the rules that does not require printing costs.

So, the three lessons I learned are:

1) The company may have already made up its mind about certain things and playtesters won't change it

2) Playtesters don't have enough time to try out everything and are often directed toward testing specific things

3) Some companies do care that the wording of rules is right, but there can be constraints that limit how much clarification you can give

You do realize, people are stupid, right? That no matter how clear and basic you make the rules, there will be people who don't understand it, and need clarification.

Your goal is simply impossible. Some people just don't understand rules.

You do realize, people are stupid, right? That no matter how clear and basic you make the rules, there will be people who don't understand it, and need clarification.

You're goal is simply impossible. Some people just don't understand rules.

*Your

Much of the problem with the rules is that there are two ways of learning this game:

1.) The convoluted rule book way with its 17 steps, and awkward triggers for things like how dropping a bomb is tied to revealing a dial instead of just 'before this ship performs a maneuver'.

2.) The simplistic way you'd teach it to someone, like saying higher orange numbers move last and attack first and that every ship gets an action unless they're stressed or they bumped or hit an asteroid, as opposed to the "check pilot stress step."

The only real issue I've seen that may have escaped the playtesters would be how much the Phantom broke the meta. Everything else has for the most part been people using the flexibility of the English language to search for loopholes to use in the game necessitating a paragraph of text or two putting out the specific intent.

And this is a roll of the playtesters, IMO, to identify what the players will see and attempt to play in a way other than it was intended!

Expecting playtesters to predict a massive meta is ridiculous. Beyond that, with respect to the phantom, they were probably playtesting several differrent cloaking mechanics while trying to balance the ship. Remember that the phantom isn't an easy ship to play either, so it's high risk high reward probably came out as acceptable at the time since there were some very hard counters to it. They aren't paid and they aren't playtesting with all their gaming time. A playtest group probably can't match the amount of play a ship gets worldwide in its first week of release.

Supposedly FFG has this great pool of playtesters...if so, why do we end up with so many FAQs AFTER a product is released???

If the playtesters are doing their jobs while playtesting, these questions should be coming up in development and ADDRESSED at that time! And then they should be revised/rewritten/ made clear at the level of the AVERAGE player!! I think there is a disconnect at this stage that should be addressed!

Added from below for those that dont read all the posts.

The playtesting should catch the questionable stuff, ie the things that turn into FAQ, and it should be resolved before release of the product so it doesnt become a FAQ! The rule in question needs to be reviewed as to what is the question and what does it take to resolve that question, ie written more clearly, explained more with the intent in mind, etc. Then we wouldnt have a BOOK of FAQ! Currently, I see an attitude of "its obvious" to to the "professional/tournament" players muddying the waters when things aren't obvious to the vast majority of "average/casual" players!

So perhaps they need to look at different playtesters?!? Bring in newbies off the street to try individual ideas! Get casual gamers in on a weekend to try a new upgrade. Things like that!

All because people get tunnel vision and things should be "obvious!"

JMHO!!!

I feel it's the more hardcore players that feel the need to hyperanalyse all of the wording in the cards which results in things being added to the FAQ and some rules debates.

Supposedly FFG has this great pool of playtesters...if so, why do we end up with so many FAQs AFTER a product is released???

If the playtesters are doing their jobs while playtesting, these questions should be coming up in development and ADDRESSED at that time! And then they should be revised/rewritten/ made clear at the level of the AVERAGE player!! I think there is a disconnect at this stage that should be addressed!

Added from below for those that dont read all the posts.

The playtesting should catch the questionable stuff, ie the things that turn into FAQ, and it should be resolved before release of the product so it doesnt become a FAQ! The rule in question needs to be reviewed as to what is the question and what does it take to resolve that question, ie written more clearly, explained more with the intent in mind, etc. Then we wouldnt have a BOOK of FAQ! Currently, I see an attitude of "its obvious" to to the "professional/tournament" players muddying the waters when things aren't obvious to the vast majority of "average/casual" players!

So perhaps they need to look at different playtesters?!? Bring in newbies off the street to try individual ideas! Get casual gamers in on a weekend to try a new upgrade. Things like that!

All because people get tunnel vision and things should be "obvious!"

JMHO!!!

I feel it's the more hardcore players that feel the need to hyperanalyse all of the wording in the cards which results in things being added to the FAQ and some rules debates.

No, it's more like, 'I just conner netted your ship into another conner net. Are you ionized a second time?" And then the TO some how decides between two perfectly valid answers as if he knows.

Sure there's stuff we all, as individuals, will wish was different, but you have no idea how good we have it. Ever hear of a game called Star Trek Attack Wing? As someone who's played that for a long time, I don't even know where to begin.

Sure there's stuff we all, as individuals, will wish was different, but you have no idea how good we have it. Ever hear of a game called Star Trek Attack Wing? As someone who's played that for a long time, I don't even know where to begin.

Wizkids. Nuff said.

One thing I do wonder about i who play tested the M3-A?

Because well, if it's so over-costed, under-performing etc. they had a big pool of new ships to test with did no one mention they simply weren't using the M3-A or what?

^This. It can't arc dodge, can't joust, can't slow-roll with its cannon(no 1fwd), and its too expensive to spam as a backbone ship. Imo the title should've reduced cannon cost, not increase it. I fail to see how ffg implements ATs to help fragile ships, but fails to give them boost..

One thing I do wonder about i who play tested the M3-A?

Because well, if it's so over-costed, under-performing etc. they had a big pool of new ships to test with did no one mention they simply weren't using the M3-A or what?

^This. It can't arc dodge, can't joust, can't slow-roll with its cannon(no 1fwd), and its too expensive to spam as a backbone ship. Imo the title should've reduced cannon cost, not increase it. I fail to see how ffg implements ATs to help fragile ships, but fails to give them boost..

Someone pointed it out up above, but playtesters don't set the point value, they make recommendations. Maybe they gave a lot of feedback in that direction, maybe they thought it should be cheaper. None of us have any idea.

If we look at the pattern of generic fighters, though, I think we have to look back at Wave 4 as the last time a fighter made an impact on the meta in its own wave. Before that, it was the B. Most fighters after that have been seeing play released since then are based on their named pilot abilities, including the rest of Wave 4. Or, they've received a buff of some kind (Refit A-Wings, new turrets and mechs for Ys, now the Advanced). I think that's going to hold true for Wave 7, too, but maybe not the new FA Core Set. This is where the Scyk lost out since its named pilots aren't very cost effective and their abilities aren't ideal for the ships them come in. The Star Viper at least has two interesting named pilots that are playable otherwise it would be in the same boat.

For whatever reason, they are very conservative with fighters, but that seems to be a larger overarching design (purposeful or not) and I doubt that's due to playtesting.

Folks should also remember that there's a conservative bias in both design and playtesting for X-wing, because it's easier to increase the power of a ship after release than to decrease it.

And that is a good thing. The other way leads to power creep.

Ok, so the answer to my earlier question would seem to be no.

Finite testing can address infinite end-user issues? That must be why we have so much bug-free software.