Why we need an official CREWBUILDER

[Ashlian]

This has been bugging me for a long time, but I really don't get why almost no other company does what corvus beli (infinity game) does.

 

1) Give all the rules to the community and update those PDF's after errata => wyrd does this when it comes to the basic rules.

2) A complete armybuilder app that is kept up to date with all errata and faq's + is configurable for different formats of gameplay => wyrd sucks at this.

 

What prompted me to write this post is the last added errata. I find this to be very problematic. Not because they changed things, but because the are starting to yet again make a mess of their rules and making it harder to find the correct ruleset for models. I get that they give free PDF's for updated models, but I find this to be lacking. this is also very unfriendly towards newcommers or the more casual player.

Leveling the playingfield for everyone and creating a very clear ruleset is easy => make a free accesible crewcreator that is updated once or twice every year and can be considered the current legal ruleset. This would not only make the rules more clear and manageable, but also greatly improve comfort for making new lists and playing the game.

To illustrate my point, this is what corvus belli provides for their costumers:

https://army.infinitythegame.com/

 

 

I strongly feel wyrd can and should do the same as i see no downside for the company itself and only advantages for the playerbase.

 

Should their already be an official wyrd endorsed crewcreator then I appologize for this rant, but I can't seem to find any.

 

(PS: the same is true for the "the other side" game => you really should consider an armybuilder for that as well)

 

 

[tomjoad]

With the caveat that Corvus Belli's official mobile app is considerably worse than some of the 3rd party options...

I think everybody will agree that Wyrd should absolutely have a crew builder app; in fact, Wyrd agree, and I am sure Aaron or somebody will link you shortly to the announcement that they are working on one. It was meant to be out months ago, and it has been delayed, but hopefully that just means that when it does come out (soon?) it will actually work.

As far as the difficulty that mass-erratas creates, I could not agree more. People complained about the 0ss upgrades, but I will always believe that that was a better option than just changing the rules. Errata leads to more confusion with making sure people have the most up to date cards and it leads to dozens upon dozens of "Well, if model x got a cuddle/buff, then why the heck wasn't model y changed too?!?!?!" Sadly, this opinion is very much in the minority right now, so errata is something we'll all have to deal with until a 3rd edition comes to put it all back together.

[Fetid Strumpet]

I'm with you that I preferred the 0 upgrades as well. I don't personally think we are necessarily in the minority. The other opinion had more reason to be vocal about wanting it done differently.

3rd edition whenever it comes, hopefully a ways from now, won't put everything back together. There will still be issues, and more of them I think if they've moved away from open testing.

[Tris]

I just want to say, Infinity needs! that crewbuilder, because it`s actually impossible to build a crew out of the books, and there are also no cards with rules for your models.

 

I absolutey hate building crews for my Infinity games....

 

Granted, the new big errata type could potentially discourage new players, but I think FLGS and Henchman should, can and will help with that, and everything is available as a free pdf, you don`t have to buy the new cards at Wargame Vault. (I´m just kinda sad that they stopped producing these Arsenal Decks, but that`s another matter)

 

 

And yeah, I would actually wish for open playtest to come back, it` s a lot of fun to see the game evolve and have the feeling you might be able to change something

(it doesn`t have to be exclusively open, you could still run a closed testing group before/afterwards to work on the basics/final details)

[doombladez]

It's worth mentioning that TOS has an app listed as a stretch goal, one that has been reached. This far out I have to imagine the app will launch soon after the game. 

[Seadhna]

I don't know if Crew Faux is officially endorsed, but it's a great, up-to-date and accurate app. 

[valhallan42nd]

23 minutes ago, Seadhna said:

I don't know if Crew Faux is officially endorsed, but it's a great, up-to-date and accurate app. 

What they said. 

[OldManMyke]

Yep crew faux is fantastic

[Beta]

App is on its way

[JDAntoine]

9 hours ago, Fetid Strumpet said:

3rd edition whenever it comes, hopefully a ways from now, won't put everything back together. There will still be issues, and more of them I think if they've moved away from open testing.

I dont know if a 3rd edition wouldn't put everything back together. Honestly I dont think its planned for next year but would not be suprised to see it after Wave 6. By large because at that point every faction will have enough depth of models to have seperate faction specific books, which obviously also comes with its pros and cons but allows for a good selection for all models and the depth. By then it's very likely all cards will be available through app aswell.

As for moving away from open testing... I think that's a bad plan honestly. By large because how it can offset the relative small community. Wyrd's strongest compagny asset is their contact with customers and players. Even here you only have to call out a name to recieve a responce if you demand it.
Warmachine and Warhammer are perfect examples of how in house testing often leads to more issues than community testing. In that case also only one team is to blame and that's the compagny's. It's very easy to miss some rules interactions that can be found by the community later on. By large because the longer you playtest inhouse the more you get drawn into the 'intended rules' instead of the 'rules as written'.

Community playtesting remain essential, even if the community is more biased towards certain aspects of the game as the compagny. That bias is also what they 'want'.
To give a recent example of Mk3 Warmachine/Hordes, PP clearly wanted the Warjacks and Warbeasts to be on the forefront of their game, while they succeeded I have seen more than a dozen of topics that wished infantry remained more relevant (like in Mk2) and the honest part of that story remains that this is also likely what the community wanted because several systems have switched so much that a large part of communities search out for something different.

For me this story applies aswell, I quit WFB because I required too many 40-man blocks while GW offered 10-man products. I got into Malifaux because PP did not community-test Mk3 leading to several rules oddities and overal lack of consistent design amongst several factions. All of this could easily been prevented if those compagnies actually made use of open testing. TOS as Wyrd's latest game also does not seem to revolve around Titans only, I am very happy with this, people want armies and not a upscaled Skirmish game. 

[Fetid Strumpet]

It won't put everything back together because no update does. M2E was a decided improvement over 1E (in my opinion), but we lost Many dedicated people who hated the changes. Early in M2E people were cheering that wow look at how there is actually a point to taking the Ice Golem and Guild guard again, yet very swiftly they were back in the cases. Which masters are the power masters? Generally the same ones that were the power masters last edition, Kirai, The Dreamer, Colette, though to be fair the spectrum is tighter this time.

One of the major design goals of M2E, much touted at the time was to get away from the concept of the game being balanced faction to faction and instead balance it master to master. Now it seems that concept is completely forgotten by the player base, though that is an important concept to me.

The LOS and 3D terrain rules took a massive hit and actually got worse in the edition change.

There are other things that are issues, but my point is even an edition change from 1E to M2E, which I thought was exceptionally good, (though I Personally think they've lost their way on some design decisions, at least if they haven't abandoned some of the publicly stated design goals), didn't put everything back together. That is a personal opinion and not meant as anything other than constructive critisim.

And I think you perhaps misunderstood, I personally am in favor of open public tests. Wyrd seems, at least from the last book and Justin's comments before leaving to have abandoned them. Even Warmahoards abandoned it for their third edition.

Time will tell how things turn out. And while the game could get better every update, at a certain point, and I'm not saying we are there, updates just change the game, they don't necessarily always make it better, but even the ones that have been good, haven't ever successfully put everything back together.

 

[tomjoad]

9 hours ago, Fetid Strumpet said:

It won't put everything back together because no update does. M2E was a decided improvement over 1E (in my opinion), but we lost Many dedicated people who hated the changes. Early in M2E people were cheering that wow look at how there is actually a point to taking the Ice Golem and Guild guard again, yet very swiftly they were back in the cases. Which masters are the power masters? Generally the same ones that were the power masters last edition, Kirai, The Dreamer, Colette, though to be fair the spectrum is tighter this time.

...

And I think you perhaps misunderstood, I personally am in favor of open public tests. Wyrd seems, at least from the last book and Justin's comments before leaving to have abandoned them. Even Warmahoards abandoned it for their third edition.

Time will tell how things turn out. And while the game could get better every update, at a certain point, and I'm not saying we are there, updates just change the game, they don't necessarily always make it better, but even the ones that have been good, haven't ever successfully put everything back together.

 

By "put back together" I meant only that all the rules would be up to date and in one place again, rather than having the errata and FAQs to go through. Obviously there will always be new FAQs, but at least it will be put together for the time.

I actually disagree with you on the open beta issue, though. I think Malifaux players had too much entitlement at times, but, I don't know, maybe no more than anywhere else. The problem, then, is in the expectations. For Shifting Loyalties, Justin first gave us some crazy powerful options so that we'd try them and then he toned them down from there. That sets people up to be disappointed by how the models work in the end (I am still bummed out, on occasion, then I see that the Shadow Emissary's severe damage is only 6). I liked the closed-but-with-volunteers approach for Ripples, but I think the leak assured they'll never do anything like that again. If the only testers now are Wyrd staff and henchman then...well, we don't know how that will go over. I really do agree with you that some of the design choices Wyrd are going with make me concerned, but it's still mostly the same team that made my very favorite minis game ever, so I'm willing to suspend my doubt for now.

[solkan]

20 hours ago, tomjoad said:

By "put back together" I meant only that all the rules would be up to date and in one place again, rather than having the errata and FAQs to go through. Obviously there will always be new FAQs, but at least it will be put together for the time.

First edition accomplished that "put everything back together" using the 1.5 rules manual, I believe.

In other published areas, that's generally how errata and FAQs work--a new revision of the document is produced for the next printing, incorporating the errata and corrections.  For instance, if these were textbook editions we wouldn't be flailing about that everything in the text was going to change.

As I understand it, that doesn't happen as often in war gaming because it takes a long time for a print run to sell out, and by then the companies usually want to make bigger changes.

But FAQ's are eternal, due to the insurmountable ability of a thousand people to find two thousand ways of reading the document. 

[LunarSol]

In general, I think Hearthstone really lit a fire in tabletop gaming and a need to be far more proactive in updates and rebalancing.  The strengths of cards have become a weakness, but its not a fully solved problem either.  I am really looking forward to the upcoming app though, simply because having access to every rule from my phone feels pretty baseline these days.

I'm actually slightly uncertain if M2E is prepared for a digital structure though.  I feel like there's a great version of the game where conditions and upgrades are seamlessly tracked, but I'm not sure if the current card format supports that game particularly well.

[solkan]

27 minutes ago, LunarSol said:

In general, I think Hearthstone really lit a fire in tabletop gaming and a need to be far more proactive in updates and rebalancing.  The strengths of cards have become a weakness, but its not a fully solved problem either.  I am really looking forward to the upcoming app though, simply because having access to every rule from my phone feels pretty baseline these days.

I'm actually slightly uncertain if M2E is prepared for a digital structure though.  I feel like there's a great version of the game where conditions and upgrades are seamlessly tracked, but I'm not sure if the current card format supports that game particularly well.

I'm not sure, but I think there's a "Player A has a tablet, Player B insists on playing with token and physical cards.  Design an app that's still useable" as a counter point to your concern.

 

[LunarSol]

Right.  My assumption is that at some point the value of supporting physical cards no longer outweighs the restrictions it places upon game design.  I personally enjoy them, but games seem to be drifting away from them in favor of more adaptable methods of rule distribution.

[-Loki-]

There's absolutely still a large part of the gaming community that doesn't like electronic devices intruding on their hobby time. Those people see hobby time as a way to escape their normal day which tends to be filled with these devices. I don't see physical rulebooks, unit cards, and other physical means of accessing rules going away for a long time. However, solkan had it right that these things can absolutely coexist.

In a recent Infinity league, we had people using the physical books and hand written army lists, people using the (honestly pretty awful) official mobile army builder and people using third party army builders. If the official army builder was better, those using third party apps probably would have used it. There was no conflict between the two types of gamers, and each looked up rules and stats in their own way.

The same goes for crewfaux. I see people that use it to make a list quickly and then hunt for the cards, and people that just go and hunt through their cards and hash out their list entirely with them. I think where an official app could be beneficial is, even if it cost money, having the cards in the app itself. That way people using the app wouldn't have to hunt through their cards. It wouldn't detract from those using cards, it would just be another way of building your list and tracking the game.

[LunarSol]

No doubt about it.  There are lots of reasons I prefer cards, but as games are trying to be better about dynamic balance adjustments, they're becoming increasingly unreliable.  On the flip side, the more reliable cards are, the more frustrating a game can be when problematic models go unaddressed.

What mostly drives me away from cards these days is just all the sorting and out of game management.  Malifaux isn't TOO bad, but it still takes more effort to gather a list than I'd like.  Granted, its nothing compared to X-Wing and its ridiculous stack of little half sized cards.  That's a game that makes a huge case for the power of digital.

The digital push will certainly be interesting.  A lot of games seem to really be driving that way, but perhaps all that's really needed is better printing services.  I should probably take better advantage of Wyrd's card order options on that note.

[Omenbringer]

While I like Crew Faux it doesn't support the Story Encounter mode of play (i.e. where players have different Strategies not the "Story Encounters" that are featured in some boxes). Really wish it did as I enjoy that mode of play much more than the symmetrical Strategies found in the "Standard Encounters" or Gaining Grounds options.

As for a future edition...all I am hoping for is a dramatic improvement in the LOS and Elevation rules (hell I'd be happy if they just went back to the 1.5 edition ones which weren't that bad honestly). I miss playing on multi-tiered boards.

[BeardMonk]

Crewfaux is great as far as it goes.

I also play WM/H.  Malifaux seriously needs an official app along the lines of WarRoom.  At the start of the new edition I paid £40 to have access to all cards for all factions, for the entirety of the edition, build lists and use the list in a battle format where I can mark off damage etc as battle go on.  My £40 gives me all the updates, errata changes, new models cards etc.  I find it annoying with Malifaux the amount of physical cards I have to carry around.  Id rather just whip out my smartphone/tablet and have it all at my fingertips.

The only physical thing id want to keep is the fate deck.  In the same way I still need physical dice for WM/H.

[phloog]

I will add my vote for a builder...but I would love it if - - unlike Crewfaux to my knowledge, it also has a general inventory/model checklist for all your models.