SA LAB Community Questionnaire

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

Unfortunately, our email server has been listed as spam issuer by major email providers, which means that most of our emails are rejected at the moment.
In case of lost password or similar issue, please post to the Website Helpdesk (you can post in there even if you aren't logged in).

  • SA LAB Community Questionnaire

    Dear Saurians,

    The time has finally come, the questionnaire is ready.

    The purpose of this questionnaire is to collect the general public opinion about the Saurian Ancients LAB. The LAB team asks you to fill out as much as you can, but you are not required to go into detail on every entry, but we appreciate if you would do so. The results of this form will be used for the future development of the book.

    To collect your thoughts we ask you to rate the different entries and rules.We are happy with any feedback, but in case you think something needs a bit redesign, it would help us if you can elaborate your opinion further or come with suggestions.

    The questionnaire can only be filled out once and after submitting the answers you can edit your answers.

    PROCEED TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE BY PRESSING THIS LINK

    Thank you,

    The SA LAB Team.
    @thedarkfourth
    @gundizalbo
    @IHDarklord
    @thedoctor
    @Marcema

  • great initiatives;
    For future polls, I'd always like start start with a "who are you" part, with some very short info on the reacter (what armies do you play, how many game do you think you played with SA slim, and with SA lab, tourny or mainly one on ones, etc). This helps sort the input. Its sounds weird but circumstances count as much as the actual feedback sometimes. But still, great initiative.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    When strolling around before going to bed, a mean Orc might whack you on the back of your head!

  • Answered the questionnaire, but I think it lack some part :
    First some rules aren't mentionned while army wide (shall probably be in the "model rule" section) : minimized (Dis), swift reform and strider (water). It's kinda invisible and, for example, I forget to mention that minimized (Dis) add nothing to the book execpt complexity and rule bloating while the Dis values of 9-10 are totally not used in the book (if it was only part of the book or with more restricted (like min (non-break Discipline test) it could be worth but here any +1/2 Dis army wide give the same result more or less, this game is not so fine tuned that the need of intermediate value for +/-4% more chance to pass a test is that valuable).
    Second, even if the poll is long, a final overview for each section would add something : sometimes entries are OK, but the whole package have some holes or are not coherent enough, that's not asked anywhere and it's easy to miss / unidentify when you were asked to elaborate only on each entry.
    Player of :UD_bw: & DE_Homebrew (link)
    ---- 2024 Terracotta PDF available here ----
    The DE LAB is just worth boycotting.

  • Minidudul wrote:

    Answered the questionnaire, but I think it lack some part :
    First some rules aren't mentionned while army wide (shall probably be in the "model rule" section) : minimized (Dis), swift reform and strider (water). It's kinda invisible and, for example, I forget to mention that minimized (Dis) add nothing to the book execpt complexity and rule bloating while the Dis values of 9-10 are totally not used in the book (if it was only part of the book or with more restricted (like min (non-break Discipline test) it could be worth but here any +1/2 Dis army wide give the same result more or less, this game is not so fine tuned that the need of intermediate value for +/-4% more chance to pass a test is that valuable).
    Second, even if the poll is long, a final overview for each section would add something : sometimes entries are OK, but the whole package have some holes or are not coherent enough, that's not asked anywhere and it's easy to miss / unidentify when you were asked to elaborate only on each entry.
    If it's something you want to comment on, comment on it on one of the entries that havr the rule is my recommendation. Its already such a long questionnaire and focusing on all individual rules on entries just becomes a too much.

    Discipline and minimised discipline should be included under communal bond.

    Everyone is welcome to elaborate more on aspects on the forum, but we like to structure it somehow.
    We are of course are fully aware that things are connected and i hope that people consider us somewhat competent to figure this out that when they write a comment about prey scent, it automatically hangs together with predator senses etc.

  • Thank you for this extra effort really. It is much appreciated.

    Making a book of these characteristics for sure is a lot of work and it is not always rewarded.

    I have filled out the survey. I am one of those people that i am not confortable using the army. I feel somewhat lost with such giant blocks and I see myself overwhelmed in front of my rivals.


    I think being able to have really good shooting attacks could balance it out a bit. Chameleons don't quite work as the scout rule is no longer useful and Weapon Beasts don't play a big role either. It's a pity, hopefully that can be fixed.

    It would be nice to be able to bother the opponent with shots to force them out of his position and take advantage of that. Now I see that SA is very predictable and the rivals know how to disarm us.

  • Shinymetallass wrote:

    There are questions about existing entries only.
    But from the start we have lost some artefacts.
    We need, i think 2 additional banners and artefact, which makes a lake on a battlefield. SA units can have additional benefits near it.
    Very true. Since we lost a lot of "identity" with the last updates, it would be really cool to be Water feature dependant, a bit like SE with forests

    pulps
    ETC2015, SA - Switzerland
    ETC2016, SA - Switzerland
    ETC2017, SA - Switzerland
    ETC2018, SA - Switzerland
    ETC2019, VC - Switzerland, 3rd Place

  • Nesro wrote:

    i would have like an "don't know, don't care" option.

    As a non SA player, I still feel I want to answer the questionnaire.
    Right now, "keep as it is" will be my main answer even though I sometimes either don't know or don't care
    very important point indeed, if you prioritize due quantification. Only because people dont care, it doesnt mean that the entry shouldnt be changed.

    Imho the claim should be to make every single entry as good as possible (in context of the whole book). ATM it seems only urgent thing will be changed. Knowing that this is voluntary work, but on the other hand we got a handfull of LAB members. As i can judge the T9A internal processes are the most time consuming part. Nevertheless tools like this questionaire may help a lot.

    Just want to encourage LAB team to be brave and also include their own ideas. The questionaire cant be an excuse for later (not predictable) alpha malfunctions. As already mentioned they can evaluate the impacts of changes the best.

    Thanks and good luck.

  • Dancaarkiiel wrote:

    sonny1086 wrote:

    Just want to encourage LAB team to be brave and also include their own ideas.
    I don't want to be rude, but they kind of already did and that's why SA is where it is to begin with x)That being said, Team proved they're capable of listening to the Community so hopefully things will get better from now on :love:
    Actually they did also with community ideas (including mine), which failed. Just introduce stuff, only because its from community shouldnt be the only way. In the end LAB team has to filter, evaluate, make decicions and bear the responsibility imho. We just can support with a pool of creative ideas.

  • personally from what I have seen the lab team is willing to express knew ideas but the most wacky ones gets shot down by the RT at least from what I have seen.

    also fantastic job on soo many people filling out the questionnaire almost 100 people took the time ! positively (from the book, not on a personal level) was that soo many express satisfaction with most units in the book

  • w1ndkiller wrote:

    personally from what I have seen the lab team is willing to express knew ideas but the most wacky ones gets shot down by the RT at least from what I have seen.
    Have the same feeling here.

    w1ndkiller wrote:

    also fantastic job on soo many people filling out the questionnaire almost 100 people took the time ! positively (from the book, not on a personal level) was that soo many express satisfaction with most units in the book
    Agreed with the positive aspect of the amount of feedback. Nevertheless, i want to point out again what @Nesro said: the questionaire does not distingish between "satisfaction" (keep it like it is) and "i dont care".

    I repeat myself, but in the long therm it may worth it to look on every single entry proactively (not saying they all need changes). Never change a running system may be the counter argument. As always, risk/chance affinity vs safety first :)

  • w1ndkiller wrote:

    positively (from the book, not on a personal level) was that soo many express satisfaction with most units in the book
    Went through the results out of curiosity. Kind of expected, especially the special (heh) section.

    Category average for "Keep as it is" option:
    1. Chars - 57.23%
    2. Core - 51.78%
    3. Special - 43.18%
    4. Guerilla - 57.20%

    5. Thunder - 54.40%
    So roughly 50/50 between the categories.

    Top 3 for this option:
    1. Skink Veteran (75.3%)
    2. Skink Warriors (74.2%)

    3. Pteradon Sentries/Taurosaur (66%)

    Bottom 3 for this option:
    1. Rhamphodon Riders (22.7%)
    2. Tegu Warriors (24.7%)
    3. Thyroscutus Herd (30.9%)


    Great piece of info btw, some of the comments are truly out of this planet :love:

  • Shinymetallass wrote:

    There are questions about existing entries only.
    But from the start we have lost some artefacts.
    We need, i think 2 additional banners and artefact, which makes a lake on a battlefield. SA units can have additional benefits near it.
    I also feel similarly. Magic items section is lacking: slim had 15 and LAB has 13, from which 1 shouldn't be even counted imo (koru stone as replacement of generic BSB options that could be taken on many different character choices).

    It would be nice if water strider was more useful than how marginal currently it is.

  • Shinymetallass wrote:

    There are questions about existing entries only.
    But from the start we have lost some artefacts.
    We need, i think 2 additional banners and artefact, which makes a lake on a battlefield. SA units can have additional benefits near it.
    Maybe creating a water terrain feature outright is a bit strong, it is the Sylvan Elves Army Specific Rule after all and copying it to a banner might make them sad. But how about something like the Warriors of the Dark Gods' Wasteland Torch? Or - as a variation on a similar theme - something like a banner that lets you have a terrain feature on the battlefield become a water terrain in addition to its current type for a turn (by paying with a veil token)? For an artifact something like the Sylvan Elves Sacred Seeds for water terrain might also work...