But like I said I already know most of the rules minus a few tweaks and can make the rules for the new stuff I just can't tell you. So when that time comes I'll discuss it otherwise I'm dropping it.

I wouldn't fish for anything covered by an NDA, as it's not my style.

My point was to bring up a very important consideration that's been missed with some of the current blog units already.

arkangl said:

I understand your effort and your motives for your project. It will come a lot closer to getting us playable "normal" vehicles than anything I'm doing. The superheroes are fun, but IMO, all of the heroes in the game are low powered supers, just like early Batman & Captain America.

I'm not going to add anything to the discussion that you are having with Gimp & Grey Knight, except to point out that when I first looked at your cards months ago, I also thought you were a bit off in some of your armor values.

Yep, tanks are going to need movement restrictions & facing problems, but they should actually be more accurate and possibly faster in a straight line run than a walker.

Gimp said:

Personally, I'd prefer to fish for the option to be covered by the NDA...of course, then I couldn't talk about it, but at least I'd know...

Ugh, I just realized it has been four years since the last time I actually was doing serious play testing. Trying to keep up with my son has put a crimp in my style I guess. Fortunately he is just starting to old enough to be able to get a little time on DMO when it comes out in a year or two.

Algesan said:

I would happily be silenced by an NDA, but I won't try and weasel information from someone else who is. I tend to be unimpressed with people who violate them, so I try not to give people the chance.

Playtesting can be a lot of fun, but I also enjoy the harsh analysis I feel it requires to be done well. I've gotten to work with my son and daughter doing playtest work a few times, and that has always been a lot of fun. Of course, I also wound up asking a company I playtested for not to put my name in the acknowledgements, because the direction they decided to take game play really bothered me, and I didn't want to be officially associated with it. Playtesting the game was still fun and challenging, and the company designers are great people, but it wound up doing things I really disagreed with in game play.

ok im having a prblem which tanks are open top and which ones are bc everytime i good search open topped tanks i get storage containers and add WWII i just get a bunch of crap.

arkangl said:

It wouldn't be an easy search, because not all open topped vehicles were called that specifically.

Most tank destroyers were open topped, but not all, especially for the Germans and Soviets as they changed assault gun carriers to tank destroyers with better guns. The US built the most with full, but open topped turrets.

Most assault guns were closed topped, but not all.

Most armored cars were closed topped, but not all.

Anti-aircraft vehicles were normally open topped to give the vehicles' guns enough elevation. They needed a 360 degree firing capability, but achieved it with anything from unarmored platforms, to armored skirts that dropped when in position, to armored skirts that could stay up for ground attack, to full open topped turrets.

Half tracks were all open topped, as I recall, or had a canvas cover, even when converted to carry bigger guns. The British Bren & Universal Carriers were fully tracked, but open topped for just about every configuration.

Even tanks get an odd treatment, as the 'kangaroo' added to a tank's name were tanks without a working turret converted to open topped APC's.

You can go for the flip side, and get unarmored trucks with armored shells or even turrets to carry anything from anti-tank guns to howitzers or anti-aircraft guns.

I doubt a search would give you an easy differentiation for any of that.

arkangl said:

You don't need to search for open topped tanks, when you are designing a card for a particular vehicle just perform an image search of the vehicle.

You do need to fix the type and numbers of MG's on the tanks though Ark. The early cards seem to ignore the co-ax mg's (eg. Panther missing co-ax and AA MG's), which would be ok for game balance but the ruling needs to be consistant, and the other extreme some of the later cards have German CO-AX and hull MG's as AA weapons (eg Panzer IV).

I have decades of WW2 gaming experience and a shelf full of WW2 books, if you want any assistance in you cards just give me a shout.

Well I know i did but, i didnt know how I should approach it and now that they have the dual victory MG and the dual StG44 it should be easier

The twin guns aren't really suitable for use for MG's situatued and operated in different parts of the tank by different crew (might be useful for the Panzer 1 though) and should be able to engage different targets. As a suggestion, if a tank has co-ax mg's they could only really fire at one target, why not have one stat line for both main gun and co-ax MG by just adding a few dice against infantry targets? This would then give the hull MG and AA MG to work exactly the same way as the Mechs.

Major Mishap said:

It could be fun to run them separate, especially as DUST Warfare has been shown to have rules for taking out individual weapons. A combined stat line wouldn't allow that, while separate stat lines would allow for weapon damage, or special scenario rules with limited ammo.

The co-ax normally fired at the same target, but the time constraints for a DUST turn are also nebulous, so there could be the possibility of allowing engagement of separate targets within a single turn, as well.

Gimp said:

I love playtesting. Give me a chance to break the rules overtly and by malicious compliance without penalty. Especially the second where you don't have to deal with whiners whining about being beaten badly because you "cheated" by following the rules as written strictly.

Algesan said:

It can be interesting, so long as everyone playing knows they're supposed to try and break the system. Sometimes, it's easy, and a different set of eyes can spot it just by reading, and sometimes you're only sure by trying it on the table, but it is an interesting challenge.

Whiners and playtesting really don't mix, though I suppose reports of their antics can highlight an issue simple logic might not carry enough weight to show.

It's frustrating as a player to see obvious errors that got past playtesters and review, but the good companies are willing to acknowledge mistakes and take steps to fix them.

The only thing I find more distastful than really bad playtesting is the companies that backpedal and spin errors to be either weird uses of language to fix, or somehow not really an error for some other reason. I much prefer those with enough honesty and integrity to simply say, 'We screwed up, and here's the fix.'