Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 the_scotsman wrote:

Karol wrote:
I don't know mr S, raiders with the gun they have at 85 pts, breaking the barrier of just being efficient. The fact that they can ignore transport rules, fly etc is just a bonus. If orks had a 85pts trukk that is as efficient as raiders, ork armies would be a swarm of vehicles too.

Sam with Drazhar. If a person who plays the army, and is the armies playtesters, says that he would run him at 25 more points, then mistakes were made durning rules writing or cost determination.

^yeah this is my exact point. Fly is just a very occasional bonus to the Raider, it's not some key core thing that makes it good, there are a gak ton of transports with Fly that are way worse than Raiders.

GSC basically do have a transport that's a very slightly worse raider for 85pts, and it pretty much is what competitive GSC armies are made up of. The problem is, it's got several things that it does worse than a raider (no chapter tactics, 6+ shrug instead of 5+ invuln, slightly worse guns) but the main problem with it is compared to Wyches and Kabalites and Wracks, Acolytes and Neophytes and Aberrants are a bad joke.

I promises you...if the devilfish or waveserpant were open topped they would be spammed too.
Open topped the main issue. It is a free bonus essnetially...no where do I see open topped transports paying more than their hard topped counterparts...when in fact - it makes the unit much more capable.

Do we know for sure the game designers don't really playtest this?

I mean, I work in IT and with just simple spreadsheets I can build scenarios to test unit by units. Assuming attacker is in range of defender, how much damage based on avg dice rolls would the defender incurs?

I'd try to make it as general agnostic as possible and just test the RULES.

IE, take a DT wrack liquifier unit and compare to SoB troop unit. Just shooting at 18" and work out the SoB saves when the wracks shoots first.

Then, take a DL Raider + DT wrack liquifier unit and compare to SoB troops unit and work out the avg results.

Basically take every combination and permutations at unit-by-unit with unit/army rules interaction and obvious combos (ie, wracks in raiders)..

No scenery.

No Strategems.

Nothing that is really a GENERAL driven activity. Just the facts ma'am to compare the units.

What this'll do is create a baseline set of data to ascertain if the new rules/interacts is something they intended. And it wouldn't take someone untold hours to playtest to weed these things out.

Spoletta wrote:
You are proving my point.
Succubus is an issue? No. A certain combination of traits and relics on a subbus is.

Liquifiers are an issue? No, a certain combination is again responsible for the issue.

Are raiders op on datasheet? They are extremely good due to what they can bring. Without carrying capacity it would be a bad model. Transport capabilities is not something that PPW PPD analysis would take in consideration.

You have to compare comparable situations.

A raider with open topped compared to a devilfish without it.
Put a unit in each and calculate PPD. Realistically though - it is very easy to figure that the unit with open topped allows a unit to shoot where the hard topped unit doesn't...which unit should cost more? The raider ofc right? Nope...The devilfish costs a lot more and is a lot worse to boot.

The issue with the succubus. Is more of an issue of its relics being to strong. Heck...even the triarch whip with the mortal wounds on 6's WL trait is way too strong. Yeah you can nerf the relic and WL trait the end problem though is an issue of too much value for too little points.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
You are proving my point.
Succubus is an issue? No. A certain combination of traits and relics on a subbus is.

Liquifiers are an issue? No, a certain combination is again responsible for the issue.

Are raiders op on datasheet? They are extremely good due to what they can bring. Without carrying capacity it would be a bad model. Transport capabilities is not something that PPW PPD analysis would take in consideration.

You have to compare comparable situations.

A raider with open topped compared to a devilfish without it.
Put a unit in each and calculate PPD. Realistically though - it is very easy to figure that the unit with open topped allows a unit to shoot where the hard topped unit doesn't...which unit should cost more? The raider ofc right? Nope...The devilfish costs a lot more and is a lot worse to boot.

I'm not saying that it isn't easy to catch how lowcosted the raider is.

I'm only arguing against a PPW PPD analysis being enough.

 whembly wrote:
Do we know for sure the game designers don't really playtest this?

No idea, but beyond simple sanity stuff, they shouldn't be. A developer should never be formally testing their own work. Independent testing is hugely important for any product, because you simply can't eliminate bias and cultivate a sufficient level of self-criticism.

You need that fresh pair of eyes. It's incredibly hard to see the wood for the trees when you've been working on something for a period of time.

Hell, perhaps a large portion of internal testing is the designers looking at their own work and that's why things are being missed.

We don't know what GW does internally to test. We do have a pretty good idea of their playtesting program from people who are ex-playtesters who have spoken about it, and it really is as bare-bones as just "here's some rules, play some games with them and give us feedback."

Spoletta wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
You are proving my point.
Succubus is an issue? No. A certain combination of traits and relics on a subbus is.

Liquifiers are an issue? No, a certain combination is again responsible for the issue.

Are raiders op on datasheet? They are extremely good due to what they can bring. Without carrying capacity it would be a bad model. Transport capabilities is not something that PPW PPD analysis would take in consideration.

You have to compare comparable situations.

A raider with open topped compared to a devilfish without it.
Put a unit in each and calculate PPD. Realistically though - it is very easy to figure that the unit with open topped allows a unit to shoot where the hard topped unit doesn't...which unit should cost more? The raider ofc right? Nope...The devilfish costs a lot more and is a lot worse to boot.

I'm not saying that it isn't easy to catch how lowcosted the raider is.

I'm only arguing against a PPW PPD analysis being enough.

I don't disagree with that. You have to look a interactions too. There is a very easy way to identify issues though. Compare cost and capability. If anything is off there you have a giant red flag. How you fix the problem is up to the imagination of the writer.

The part that is silly is this isn't even play testing we are discussing. This is drawing bored stuff. You should remove all red flags before you send it to a "playtester" - they don't do any of these things though. Or they do it for some parts and not others. I can't figure out what they do because...sometimes they will make a rule that seems to consider possible interactions like the +1 damage to melee weapons warlord trait that has "excluding relics" but the mortal wounds on 6's warlord trait doesn't? I just dont get that.

yukishiro1 wrote:
We don't know what GW does internally to test. We do have a pretty good idea of their playtesting program from people who are ex-playtesters who have spoken about it, and it really is as bare-bones as just "here's some rules, play some games with them and give us feedback."

I can believe it Yuki. It absolutely comes through in the released product doesn't it?

The members I'm aware of are all prominent youtubers, reviewers, competitive players. They're thrown a reward (play tester status), and then likely feel they can't say anything very negative in content they put out, for fear of having the 'reward' taken away.

It still irks me that we're ok with top competitive players having access to new content potentially months before everyone else - that's not a level playing field, however large or small an advantage it might convey.

It might be cynical, but I'm not sure it isn't accurate to call it a marketing ploy, labelled as 'testing'.
(The games industry does much the same thing with some of it's open 'beta tests'. It's often just a way to generate hype).

 the_scotsman wrote:

Unless the policy changes, and The Dwayne is not shoved down everyone's throat as The Mandatory Wrestler Everyone Must Always Fight and All Fans Must Consume, then he's never going to be able to particularly good at any one given thing. it's just the nature of the beast.

I couldn't care less about his wrestling career, but as far as his movies? I don't watch them because I'm forced to (there's plenty of other stuff to watch), I watch them because he's consistently entertained me. Now & then there's a dud or there's something I'll just pass on, but overall I'm reasonably sure his stuff will entertain.
He doesn't need to be perfect to accomplish that (though he's better at it than many making similar fair).
Maybe HE'd like an Oscar & a truck full of $$$. (I'm pretty sure he's received the latter ) Me? All I ask for is a reasonably entertaining action flick every so often. He delivers, so I'll very likely buy another ticket.... I'll be sad when he eventually ages out of the action movie category.

My relationship with GW is similar.
I don't demand - or expect - perfection from them. Just great models and games that are fun & entertaining
GAMES: They've done e decent job of selling me games that I find fun & entertaining (primarily WHFB/40k/AoS, but a fair # of their specialist games as well). When they make something I'm not interested in (like Blood Bowl)? I just ignore it. When I find a dud? Like for example 40k 6e & 7e? Then I'll stop playing that edition or just skip it outright, checking back next time. And in the meantime nothing stops me & my friends from playing previous editions we know we like.
MODELS: They have ALWAYS sold me models I like. They've been doing this since the early/mid 80's before I even knew they made games themselves. It's where most of my GW related spending is focused regardless of wether I'm playing their games or not at any given moment. People rant about "Stop supporting GW! They make awful games!!!" Well why the hell should I stop buying models I like? If an edition sucks I don't HAVE to play it to enjoy, or even get use out of, the models.... Of course GW just sees the $, they don't know if or how I'm playing...

 the_scotsman wrote:
Well meme'd milord, you verily have caught your opponent in a quite embarrassing logical fallacy *tips fedora*

How about this: You could cut the number of space marine datasheets by 33% by incorporating various "Different Units" into the same unit with a weapons swap and by eliminating firstborn units that are capable of being easily proxied as a Primaris option.

Thank ye kindly, sir.

I agree that you could reduce the number of datasheets by some % by merging them together, though I'm not going to speculate as to what that % would be off-hand - I would like to understand the design process that led to there being a number of instances where things are divided up in ways that seem... odd, too.

I firmly disagree with eliminating Firstborn units in favour of the Steroid Boyz, just because some people get their knickers in a twist about the number of datasheets in the book.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:^The only difference between the Predator Annihilator and the Predator Destructor is the turret weapon.

So, contrary to Slayer's claim, not just the sponson?

Gonna hang your hat on that? . . . Well I look forward to your upcoming IG codex with separate datasheets for each Leman Russ turret weapon.

I mean, I'm not the one that claimed there were datasheets in the SM 'dex where the only difference is the sponsons - remember, after all, the point that is being debunked here:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
We don't need separate entries for the same goddamn vehicle just because the Sponsons are fething different.

As I said above, I've got no issue with merging datasheets where it makes sense, and the Predator is a good example of where I think it would. I would like to understand the reasoning that led to them being laid out like this - is it to allow you to field 6 Predators (or 9 in a BA army) instead of 3, assuming enough HS slots? Is it just so you can advertise the two different variants, despite them being the same kit? I can't answer that question, but I would be interested in knowing the why.

Equally, I'm intrigued as to how the Whirlwind got away with staying as one vehicle, despite the two different munitions it can field - that would've seemed another one they could split if they were trying to maximise datasheets.

Anyway, this is mostly outside the scope of this thread, so back to the DE discussion...

 the_scotsman wrote:

Karol wrote:
I don't know mr S, raiders with the gun they have at 85 pts, breaking the barrier of just being efficient. The fact that they can ignore transport rules, fly etc is just a bonus. If orks had a 85pts trukk that is as efficient as raiders, ork armies would be a swarm of vehicles too.

Sam with Drazhar. If a person who plays the army, and is the armies playtesters, says that he would run him at 25 more points, then mistakes were made durning rules writing or cost determination.

^yeah this is my exact point. Fly is just a very occasional bonus to the Raider, it's not some key core thing that makes it good, there are a gak ton of transports with Fly that are way worse than Raiders.

GSC basically do have a transport that's a very slightly worse raider for 85pts, and it pretty much is what competitive GSC armies are made up of. The problem is, it's got several things that it does worse than a raider (no chapter tactics, 6+ shrug instead of 5+ invuln, slightly worse guns) but the main problem with it is compared to Wyches and Kabalites and Wracks, Acolytes and Neophytes and Aberrants are a bad joke.

Fly is big in letting you hide Raiders behind terrain without losing movement. That is not a small occasional bonus.
Combined with open-topped so you can hide, move across terrain and then shoot is big.

Just found this comment from Mike Brandt, on how GW's play testing 'works'...

"Codexes go through several steps; they are obviously written by the Book & Box Game Studio. First, they go to several playtesting cells to review their words / basic feel / the way all the units work / etc. Feedback is then provided, which is consolidated and implemented, leading to a final feedback stage on all of the written words of the rules and units. Thereafter, it moves to a stage where a broader # of cells builds lists and plays with them to identify points ("numbers") issues, broken combos, patterns of units being taken at the exclusion of all others, etc. Finally, it proceeds to a final numbers phase, where only numerical values are changeable (think: translation timelines).

There's another set of playtesters who focus on FAQ/Errata when and as needed, many of whom were selected for their particular skillsets or passion in this area. The main playtester cells include players from a wide variety of interest points, and do include both "everyday" and top tier players, so feedback has a good balance to it.

It's a constantly evolving process that continues to get better and better. But obviously nothing is perfect, as we occasionally find, and lead times for production are real. I'm particularly excited about the codexes coming out over the next year, and how well they are balanced internally and against each other ... should be great for the game. Ultimately, the playtestes are merely providing feedback; nothing more, nothing less. But the relationship between playtesters and designers improves with every successive codex."

...Right.

(Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqdHHZKibuc Mike replies to a question on playtesting in the comments section, posed by 'Meister Hyperion'.)

 Dysartes wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:^The only difference between the Predator Annihilator and the Predator Destructor is the turret weapon.

So, contrary to Slayer's claim, not just the sponson?

Gonna hang your hat on that? . . . Well I look forward to your upcoming IG codex with separate datasheets for each Leman Russ turret weapon.

I mean, I'm not the one that claimed there were datasheets in the SM 'dex where the only difference is the sponsons - remember, after all, the point that is being debunked here:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
We don't need separate entries for the same goddamn vehicle just because the Sponsons are fething different.

As I said above, I've got no issue with merging datasheets where it makes sense, and the Predator is a good example of where I think it would. . .

Option 1: Roll with the point being made, a point you agree with even
Option 2: Be pedantic

Your choice my man.

 StrayIight wrote:
Just found this comment from Mike Brandt, on how GW's play testing 'works'...

"Codexes go through several steps; they are obviously written by the Book & Box Game Studio. First, they go to several playtesting cells to review their words / basic feel / the way all the units work / etc. Feedback is then provided, which is consolidated and implemented, leading to a final feedback stage on all of the written words of the rules and units. Thereafter, it moves to a stage where a broader # of cells builds lists and plays with them to identify points ("numbers") issues, broken combos, patterns of units being taken at the exclusion of all others, etc. Finally, it proceeds to a final numbers phase, where only numerical values are changeable (think: translation timelines).

There's another set of playtesters who focus on FAQ/Errata when and as needed, many of whom were selected for their particular skillsets or passion in this area. The main playtester cells include players from a wide variety of interest points, and do include both "everyday" and top tier players, so feedback has a good balance to it.

It's a constantly evolving process that continues to get better and better. But obviously nothing is perfect, as we occasionally find, and lead times for production are real. I'm particularly excited about the codexes coming out over the next year, and how well they are balanced internally and against each other ... should be great for the game. Ultimately, the playtestes are merely providing feedback; nothing more, nothing less. But the relationship between playtesters and designers improves with every successive codex."

...Right.

(Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqdHHZKibuc Mike replies to a question on playtesting in the comments section, posed by 'Meister Hyperion'.)

That is gold man thanks ! Perhaps all this was done for DE and then they changed stuff to give it more spice ? « This Drukari codex is balanced but boring, let’s give it more special sauce » and that is how things went wrong ?
Else the dude is just plain lying, which is totally possible, or at the least Highly Exaggerating

 StrayIight wrote:
Just found this comment from Mike Brandt, on how GW's play testing 'works'...

"Codexes go through several steps; they are obviously written by the Book & Box Game Studio. First, they go to several playtesting cells to review their words / basic feel / the way all the units work / etc. Feedback is then provided, which is consolidated and implemented, leading to a final feedback stage on all of the written words of the rules and units. Thereafter, it moves to a stage where a broader # of cells builds lists and plays with them to identify points ("numbers") issues, broken combos, patterns of units being taken at the exclusion of all others, etc. Finally, it proceeds to a final numbers phase, where only numerical values are changeable (think: translation timelines).

There's another set of playtesters who focus on FAQ/Errata when and as needed, many of whom were selected for their particular skillsets or passion in this area. The main playtester cells include players from a wide variety of interest points, and do include both "everyday" and top tier players, so feedback has a good balance to it.

It's a constantly evolving process that continues to get better and better. But obviously nothing is perfect, as we occasionally find, and lead times for production are real. I'm particularly excited about the codexes coming out over the next year, and how well they are balanced internally and against each other ... should be great for the game. Ultimately, the playtestes are merely providing feedback; nothing more, nothing less. But the relationship between playtesters and designers improves with every successive codex."

...Right.

(Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqdHHZKibuc Mike replies to a question on playtesting in the comments section, posed by 'Meister Hyperion'.)

That seems super reasonable. An obscure place to find it, very nice of you to post it

 addnid wrote:


That is gold man thanks ! Perhaps all this was done for DE and then they changed stuff to give it more spice ? « This Drukari codex is balanced but boring, let’s give it more special sauce » and that is how things went wrong ?
Else the dude is just plain lying, which is totally possible, or at the least Highly Exaggerating

It's interesting isn't it?

I've no intention of bad mouthing Mike here, I don't know him and it wouldn't be fair even if I did. I know he works for GW these days, and that comment is three weeks old. So post DE codex...

I mean, as an employee, he's not going to say anything negative about the way things are done. Plus, he's part of this testing process so has a certain amount of investment in it.

Perhaps he believes everything that he's written. I think all of us can see some serious flaws here if this is literally the entire process though. It implies that these play testers have a certain level of agency too - he specifically talks about feedback being implemented - so what level of the issues that we're seeing is the fault of the play test team?

Broken combos? Well balanced codexes? I mean, stuff is getting missed. Pretty obviously at this point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vict0988 wrote:


That seems super reasonable. An obscure place to find it, very nice of you to post it

No worries at all. I just stumbled across it completely by accident this evening. Serendipity I guess

 Xenomancers wrote:

I promises you...if the devilfish or waveserpant were open topped they would be spammed too.
Open topped the main issue. It is a free bonus essnetially...no where do I see open topped transports paying more than their hard topped counterparts...when in fact - it makes the unit much more capable.

Maybe Mike's making those comments from the future where we all pine for the innocent days of thinking the DE book is too strong.

I have heard from a guy with a bit more inside information about the playtesting and the FAQ/Errata stuff and he says they are very frustrated. Like they send in a few pages fully formatted and with well written questions/answers as well as balance changes and then they wait and see if anything gets published. Sometimes almost nothing gets answered or released in the final document on the website. Like almost every issue the community finds in the first few days after something gets spoiled or released have already been found, an adequate fix been written and sent to GW hoping it gets noticed.

So GW for sure have the feedback and it wouldn't take much effort at all for them to fix issues. They just have to publish what their playtesters give back to them.

The way GW does things need to improve. They have tons of people putting in a lot of unpaid time testing and improving their product and they squander most of that effort.

Almost everytime I meet that guy he is face palming and ranting about how GW does things. They could be so much better without much if any extra real cost for them if they just did things right. I think I might have heard that name Mike Brandt dropped a few times last time.

It is a shame that so much passion for the game is wasted like that.

Well that can be a problem for some testers and designers too. The just don't worry army X will counter argument is also a doubled edged one. Harlis were too good for a year, now we have an army which has positive win ratings vs harlis and everything else. But the game doesn't seem better becauses of it, neither did the harlis become a bad army. they are only bad if they play vs DE.

Klickor wrote:
I have heard from a guy with a bit more inside information about the playtesting and the FAQ/Errata stuff and he says they are very frustrated. Like they send in a few pages fully formatted and with well written questions/answers as well as balance changes and then they wait and see if anything gets published. Sometimes almost nothing gets answered or released in the final document on the website. Like almost every issue the community finds in the first few days after something gets spoiled or released have already been found, an adequate fix been written and sent to GW hoping it gets noticed.

Having worked in videogame QA and then in an actual development studio, all too often feedback is ignored or not acted upon.

This can be for multiple reasons and depends on if the issue is design related or bug related. The former could just be the designers being up their own asses and not understanding criticism whereas the latter could just be a time constraint with the bugfix itself needing to severely overhaul and change gigantic swathes of the game to properly address the problem.

From statements GW playtesters have made repeatedly, the designers are very good about not taking feedback on-board or having really bizarre and backward views on how the game is actually played.

Recent statements from TTTactics videos highlight this pretty well, especially with regards to D6 damage weapons. A few interesting things to take away from them:

1) During their playtesting of the Drukhari codex, Dark Lances were damage D6 and were seemingly changed to D3+3 after the playtesting period without any subsequent testing done before the Codex went to print.

2) They repeatedly brought up the mass-proliferation of D6 damage and random shot shooting in the Necron codex and how bad such a mechanic was. Not only were no changes made to address that, but they were told "that's what the command re-roll stratagem is for." This is probably one of the most eye-boggling statements that could be made for a rules writer for the game honestly and it shows a complete lack of understanding or appreciation for the game itself. Randomness is an inherent part of the game, sure. But things like DDA's are not "competitively" viable but they are not fun either because of that ultra-randomness. Such a design fails on all levels and ways of play.

3) The feedback was obviously taken on board for the Drukhari dex though, which shows that while 9th has generally been a lot more coherent and consistent across books, the existence of different teams working on different books and having different ideas on what the game/faction should be still unfortunately exists. The problem isn't as bad as in AOS thankfully, but it's not a problem that should be happening at all.

 Bosskelot wrote:

Having worked in videogame QA and then in an actual development studio, all too often feedback is ignored or not acted upon.

True story.

- Did you find and report the defects? 'Yes'.
- Were they fixed? 'Sometimes'.
- Were you thrown under the bus when the end users found the issues that weren't? 'I'm still wearing the tyre tread imprint'.

Literally the story of Games Industry QA.

 StrayIight wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:

Having worked in videogame QA and then in an actual development studio, all too often feedback is ignored or not acted upon.

True story.

- Did you find and report the defects? 'Yes'.
- Were they fixed? 'Sometimes'.
- Were you thrown under the bus when the end users found the issues that weren't? 'I'm still wearing the tyre tread imprint'.

Literally the story of Games Industry QA.

And yet y'all gobble it up hahahaha

Brandt's a newly hired guy who was hired to be a global events manager at a time with no global events, he's not going to say anything that might get him in trouble with the brass. I mean like that "answer" was in response to someone asking how the SM 2.0 fiasco happened, and is a complete non-answer in that context in that it doesn't even acknowledge the fiasco, much less provide any explanation for why it happened. I like him as a person, and I think his heart is in the right place, but his only on the record stand since becoming a GW employee was defending the 9th edition missions as not having a first-turn advantage in the face of reams of data showing the contrary, right up until the point that GW did a 180 and admitted the issue and made big changes to address it. I'm not sure he's someone to really defer to on whether GW's internal balance process works.

 StrayIight wrote:

True story.

- Did you find and report the defects? 'Yes'.
- Were they fixed? 'Sometimes'.
- Were you thrown under the bus when the end users found the issues that weren't? 'I'm still wearing the tyre tread imprint'.

Literally the story of Games Industry QA.

Even in more "serious" industry, if the bug does not affect something important, fixing the bug is up to the developers' discretion.

Sure, we are talking about very minor bugs and errors, but it still annoying when the developers decide to just ignore the specifications.

 whembly wrote:
Do we know for sure the game designers don't really playtest this?

I mean, I work in IT and with just simple spreadsheets I can build scenarios to test unit by units. Assuming attacker is in range of defender, how much damage based on avg dice rolls would the defender incurs?

I'd try to make it as general agnostic as possible and just test the RULES.

IE, take a DT wrack liquifier unit and compare to SoB troop unit. Just shooting at 18" and work out the SoB saves when the wracks shoots first.

Then, take a DL Raider + DT wrack liquifier unit and compare to SoB troops unit and work out the avg results.

Basically take every combination and permutations at unit-by-unit with unit/army rules interaction and obvious combos (ie, wracks in raiders)..

No scenery.

No Strategems.

Nothing that is really a GENERAL driven activity. Just the facts ma'am to compare the units.

What this'll do is create a baseline set of data to ascertain if the new rules/interacts is something they intended. And it wouldn't take someone untold hours to playtest to weed these things out.

Pure mathhammer is an absolutely terrible way to discern balance, because that is not how the game works on the table.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
[Pure mathhammer is an absolutely terrible way to discern balance, because that is not how the game works on the table.

Nobody is saying to only do the math. We're saying that doing the math first and then testing and adjusting from what looks good on paper to something that plays well would be better than what GW currently does?

And I just took my old Dark eldar army (from 2006) out to repaint and get back to the game after quitting in 5ed... I will be that guy For that reason I do hope they'll be rebalanced.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
[Pure mathhammer is an absolutely terrible way to discern balance, because that is not how the game works on the table.

Nobody is saying to only do the math. We're saying that doing the math first and then testing and adjusting from what looks good on paper to something that plays well would be better than what GW currently does?

True, but "better than what GW currently does" is not exactly a high bar to clear.

 CEO Kasen wrote:
True, but "better than what GW currently does" is not exactly a high bar to clear.

Also true, but at least raw mechanical balance gives a solid place to build from. One of GW's biggest issues is that the game was never really designed for what it is now. They had a skirmish game that got big to a degree they never could have expected and it has cludged along since getting more bits mashed onto it with each passing edition. 8th was an attempt at giving the game a solid foundation but it just shows that GW doesn't have the chops to manage a clean slate rebuild of 40k either due to fear that changing things too much will shrink their market share or simply because that just isn't their skillset.

In either case, I think it's worth considering a completely clean slate boring math-based rework of the entire system, and then carefully adding special rules on top and testing them to ensure that they don't tilt the balance too much either way.