Well.. that escalated quickly.
I’m torn between the privileged response of some buyers and a desire for us to have expectations met at a certain price point etc.
Mark mentions that the game has been under development for 2 years. Well If I recall this project started much longer ago with Nuts Publishing. I recall seeing new art work and discussion of ‘things that were changing’.
It then moved to GMT… I guess 2 yrs ago.
Mark makes a claim that there are millions of data points and that his exact error ratio is low. Ok. I sense a certain defensiveness and exasperation here, very unlike Mark. So not sure why that is going on. Maybe not used to be called to task perhaps? 3,000 copies and a some rankled buyers at that scale with the full weight of internet on you quickly can likely make for a bad weekend!
Some comments here do irk me though.:
‘you can ignore certain counters, you wont need them for the campaign, so they dont matter.’
So why are they in there?
Yet all through the 4 pages of comments here are clearly identified errors on counters [ EXCLUDING silhouette issues… for goodness sake who gives a rats ass at this scale] ..
But on a later post brags about how fantastic the plane art is…and I ‘never promised anyone accurate ship art.’ ..Its one or the other shouldnt it be?
Well I guess that for some accurate art is a latent expectation.
So these errors – missing search planes on ship counters, incorrect counter values etc..we are to yes of course expected to buy the GMT house mag….[ok Its Rodger’s mag, who is a partner at GMT…or was a partner, who now has the odd ‘other game company article’ ,] which is ticking a few folks off. I dont mind as I buy it anyway.
I wonder just how many of the excess counters there really are. For instance – there are at least 22 counters we can remove from IJF for air units…
‘ I was given an art pack to work with ‘….really? I find that hard to believe. ‘Yo FRANK, what we got in the art folder for ships and shit?’ – Here ya go Mark. Make do.’
And so it goes. I think from my 3.25 plays so far now that I more fully understand where we are coming from with this ‘2nd edition’ I will be a bit more circumspect about setup and really just roll with it and check errata on GMT’s site regularly.
My overview in items for improvement from 3 brief plays.
See minute 15 onwards
So for those pondering a buy. I still say get it. The system works. My efforts at play are not being hampered by counter errors. Its more the rulebook layout and structure I’m struggling with.
BUT its light years ahead of the original version.
BUT its light years ahead of the original version.
I think the biggest surprise here for me is that there are so many comments and queries and errata comments from someone like Mark Herman, whose public perception has been this infallible God of design.
Well now we know he is human and you know what? That is ok.
Link to the errata etal:
I did think it came out very quickly compared to other projects I have done work on with other publishers. I don’t find the errata a “game breaker” and will enjoy it just fine.
As I mentioned in my video, it all is playing just fine. I suspect its a vocal minority who are upset and letting the world know. To some folks expectations may have been a lot higher than was best.
I know there is a lot of controversy about counter errata, however I can understand mistakes in the first edition of the game, nothing is going to be perfect, though we all wish it was. However, after playing the games smaller battles and engagements, and having started (with a realization of the long term commitment it makes), the whole campaign scenario from Pearl, and find the game to be both richer and deeper with every continuing hour of play. Because of this, I am willing to overlook the counter problems, because I don’t think they are going to be a big problem in the campaign scenarios because of each units small contribution to the overall strategic scenario. Getting upset and not playing the game because of the errate seems foolish, because the underlying game looks very, very good. What I find is the biggest problem is problems with what is hidden and when it is exposed, and think that continual play, and some errata at some point, the problem will be solved. We are looking at our first play as a learning run through, and not an absolute game, helping each other to understand everything, and even in that context, it has been challenging, fun, and a good experience. I am looking at becoming more of an expert playing the game. So I understand the concern about the missing counters, and I think the rule book could use some additions, but will still be playing what I think may be one of the better games on the Pacific War produced.