Switch Theme:

Does GW really playtest?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut




 thekingofkings wrote:

maybe my perspective here is skewed, but of the half dozen or so games I play that are not GW, I do not run into any of the problems that are infesting the boards about GW games. I dont see it as unfair to call a company incompetent at playtesting their own product when there are so many deliberate gaps. Much smaller companies have done a much better job at making their games balanced.


I would struggle to come up with a game that has half as many variables as 40k, particularly one made by a company as small as GW.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






kombatwombat wrote:
 thekingofkings wrote:

maybe my perspective here is skewed, but of the half dozen or so games I play that are not GW, I do not run into any of the problems that are infesting the boards about GW games. I dont see it as unfair to call a company incompetent at playtesting their own product when there are so many deliberate gaps. Much smaller companies have done a much better job at making their games balanced.


I would struggle to come up with a game that has half as many variables as 40k, particularly one made by a company as small as GW.


Malifaux, infinity, wrath of kings, mutant chronicles, flames of war, warmachine, hordes..etc....all smaller companies and all their games are just as complex as GW, now with 8th and AoS likely more complex than GW.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/22 01:36:08


 
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut




To the best of my (very limited) knowledge, none of those can hope to compete with the permutations of units and wargear that 40k has, can they? Not even considering in-game variables.

The permutations definitely came down with the advent of 8th though.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






kombatwombat wrote:
To the best of my (very limited) knowledge, none of those can hope to compete with the permutations of units and wargear that 40k has, can they? Not even considering in-game variables.

The permutations definitely came down with the advent of 8th though.


Mutant chronicles easily dwarfs 40k unit options, especially in the wargear dept. unit wise, all of them compare easily with 40k, especially when so many of 40ks units are basically just slight variations of the same thing. been playing 40k since rogue trader and it always struck me that there is more of an illusion of options in 40k than true choices. some things are just objectively bad choices. When I started branching out and trying other systems, it really struck me how bad GW really is at the "game" aspect of what they do.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/22 01:50:46


 
   
Made in us
Preacher of the Emperor




 thekingofkings wrote:
kombatwombat wrote:
 thekingofkings wrote:

maybe my perspective here is skewed, but of the half dozen or so games I play that are not GW, I do not run into any of the problems that are infesting the boards about GW games. I dont see it as unfair to call a company incompetent at playtesting their own product when there are so many deliberate gaps. Much smaller companies have done a much better job at making their games balanced.


I would struggle to come up with a game that has half as many variables as 40k, particularly one made by a company as small as GW.


Malifaux, infinity, wrath of kings, mutant chronicles, flames of war, warmachine, hordes..etc....all smaller companies and all their games are just as complex as GW, now with 8th and AoS likely more complex than GW.


Malifaux and Infinity have like 8 models per side each, don't even with that crap. And the length of the rulebook=/=complexity of the game.

I'd comment on WoK, or MC but I'm not one of the 3 people on the planet who actually plays those.

Flames of War doesn't have the size of community and the number of people mathhammering or the sheer variety of factions that 40k or AoS does so it's going to appear more balanced regardless of if it actually is or not(though in all likelyhood it IS more balanced then 40k, it's not hard when you don't have to deal with writing interesting rules for alien bug monsters or daemons from hell.)

WarmaHordes may not have balancing problems in the way 40k does, but A) That's the whole point of the game. It literally exists to be a competitive experience and that's it. Do you want proxy bases and laser pointers? Cause that's how you get proxy bases and laser pointers. AND B) You'd never ever ever guess it was more balanced than 40k based on how THEIR forums sound.

Does GW have some serious problems balancing things? Yes. Is it ever as bad as dakka says it is? In 7th, yes it was. In 8th...not really.

Here's another problem the other games don't really have to deal with as much, Skill gap. The difference between a FAAC, I'm bringing my super special awesome elite Deathwatch kill teams all armed to the teeth with whatever weapon I think is the coolest, I don't care if it doesn't really have any place in the army, versus people who actually know how to play the game is ridiculous. In other games the competitive vs. non-competitive scenes don't meet as often because the communities are much smaller and inherently more insular. Someone brings super fluff list to a competitive malifaux group? Well he's either going to accept his lumps, build stronger lists, or stop playing because that'll be the only group for 50 miles in any direction that actually plays malifaux. You want to play competitive Wrath of kings but the only other 2 people on earth that even have WoK armies do fluff games? Either build fluffier, get ostracized or stop playing.

Meanwhile in 40k you have enough people that you can form cliques within single clubs, let alone different stores. And each of those cliques is going to have a hilariously different of what is super powerful vs what isn't. For example, I've seen quite a bit of complaining about smite spam, but I never have any real problem with those lists. And sometimes people in those cliques will play each other and about 60% of the time both will walk away from the table being irritated with each other. Yes, it does suck when your army gets smashed to bits; but you know what else sucks? Smashing an army to bits when all you wanted to do was improve at the game.

TLR: Yes GW isn't great at balance, yes, other companies are better, no the company you tout as being the best there is isn't THAT much more balanced than GW, no the players don't help things, no you don't know how to fix the game, yes the absolute most frustrating thing about GWs balance is how many things end up being on the low end of power.

2500pts
2500
3000


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Malifaux and Infinity have like 8 models per side each, don't even with that crap. And the length of the rulebook=/=complexity of the game.

never mentioned length of rulebook, only quality of rules written, and while those games have fewer total models on the table, they both have lots of options at the build phase. realistically most of the 40k models are nothing more than self propelled wound counters.

As for your statements, well here its the "50 mile" drive to find people who play GW, its not a universal monolith, and yeah any list i bring to the table in malifaux can win, the game is written with those balances in. I have only ever seen 40k have that massive problem, its a symptom of poor rules. I get it, you love 40k and are condescending to other games, fine but your examples really are nothing like what I have seen. I have 19 crews in malifaux and have won and lost with each one against pretty much all comers. the whole concept of "fluffy" list as applied to 40k just doesnt apply to malifaux or WoK at all. Again, I can bring any combination of models in any faction and can compete with any other. to be blunt your experience is nothing like mine and obviously your local scene is nothing like mine.

I have no idea what your trying to get at with your last paragraph. but after 25+ years making the same game, yes GW should be a lot better at it than they are now.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/12/22 03:25:36


 
   
Made in us
Water-Caste Negotiator





 thekingofkings wrote:
Malifaux and Infinity have like 8 models per side each, don't even with that crap. And the length of the rulebook=/=complexity of the game.

never mentioned length of rulebook, only quality of rules written, and while those games have fewer total models on the table, they both have lots of options at the build phase. realistically most of the 40k models are nothing more than self propelled wound counters.


Infinity is the other game I mainly play besides 40k. At least half the models in an Infinity list, if not more, will likely never receive an order all game outside of maybe a coordinated suppression. Most of the models you take in an Infinity list are there solely to generate an order for the maybe 5 or 6 models in the list that actually matter, MAYBE take a pot shot ARO, and not die so they can keep feeding orders to the important units. If most 40k models are nothing more than self propelled wound counters, most Infinity models are even less, just spare orders and pretty scenery.

Only have limited experience with Malifaux, but it seems like a fair number of models that you take only exist to be tokens for your couple models who actually do things can do stuff to them and through them to win the game. Could be totally wrong though, feel free to correct me.

As for quality of rules written, yeah Infinity may not be the best example there. I have yet to play a game of Infinity where I did not need to have wiki.infinitythegame.com open on my phone next to me, and spend 20-30 minutes reading the wiki to figure out how rules interact at various points in the game cause Infinity interactions, while generally fun, cool, and unique in wargaming, are often a nightmare to sort out.

And for build options. Yeah, Infinity does have a fair number of build options, but you have to look at how their set up. Each unit may have multiple options on how to field them, but all of those options are prebuilt, with no room for customization once you choose which profile you're running. Its much easier to balance units when you know exactly what a model will be taking no matter what. Also, I'm fairly certain that one of my 3 man Crisis Teams has more potential build options than my entire JSA army. Just saying.

Mobile Assault Cadre: 9,500 points (3,200 points fully painted)

Genestealer Cult 1228 points


849 points/ 15 SWC 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






 GI_Redshirt wrote:
 thekingofkings wrote:
Malifaux and Infinity have like 8 models per side each, don't even with that crap. And the length of the rulebook=/=complexity of the game.

never mentioned length of rulebook, only quality of rules written, and while those games have fewer total models on the table, they both have lots of options at the build phase. realistically most of the 40k models are nothing more than self propelled wound counters.


Infinity is the other game I mainly play besides 40k. At least half the models in an Infinity list, if not more, will likely never receive an order all game outside of maybe a coordinated suppression. Most of the models you take in an Infinity list are there solely to generate an order for the maybe 5 or 6 models in the list that actually matter, MAYBE take a pot shot ARO, and not die so they can keep feeding orders to the important units. If most 40k models are nothing more than self propelled wound counters, most Infinity models are even less, just spare orders and pretty scenery.

Only have limited experience with Malifaux, but it seems like a fair number of models that you take only exist to be tokens for your couple models who actually do things can do stuff to them and through them to win the game. Could be totally wrong though, feel free to correct me.

As for quality of rules written, yeah Infinity may not be the best example there. I have yet to play a game of Infinity where I did not need to have wiki.infinitythegame.com open on my phone next to me, and spend 20-30 minutes reading the wiki to figure out how rules interact at various points in the game cause Infinity interactions, while generally fun, cool, and unique in wargaming, are often a nightmare to sort out.

And for build options. Yeah, Infinity does have a fair number of build options, but you have to look at how their set up. Each unit may have multiple options on how to field them, but all of those options are prebuilt, with no room for customization once you choose which profile you're running. Its much easier to balance units when you know exactly what a model will be taking no matter what. Also, I'm fairly certain that one of my 3 man Crisis Teams has more potential build options than my entire JSA army. Just saying.


my experience with infinity is mostly watching with jaw dropped at the people who do play (to be fair its the only game they play) so I never see them open a rule book (and only once in a blue moon do i see them argue a rule, as opposed to most 40k games where its constant) as they tend to quote rules and page numbers. as for malifaux, there is no useless unit or "wound counter" model. they all have their role to play in the schemes, you may be thinking of totems which are "bound" to their particular master, sometimes i use them, some times I dont.

for full disclosure, my army in 40k is Black Templar (for 30k its Iron Hands, but they arent relevant to the 40k issue)

something else that I dont think has been touched on is that even IF they did do some playtesting, I think they are missing their target audience or at least a large chunk of it. this part is purely opinion/conjecture, but I have noticed even in board games a european mentality of "cooperative" that I have never seen elsewhere. playtesting in a closed group of like minded players will reveal flaws or trends in that particular group, in this case. british players/europeans. by just raw numbers us players are likely to greatly outnumber them and play with a more competitive mindset. everywhere i go around the city to game stores I see "cutthroat" type competition in games like x-wing. warmahordes, guildball, infinity, etc.. folks argue that 40k is not a "tournement" game but there are lots of tournements for it.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/12/22 03:57:44


 
   
Made in us
Lustful Cultist of Slaanesh





As a Tau player I can tell you that our index was not playtested worth gak. There's a lot of blueberry scented tears over how completely gutted our army was in both points cost and function. It only gets worse when some of the more well known playtesters say "nah its fine dawg" and then ignore that army getting slaughtered in the next few tournaments.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






DominayTrix wrote:
As a Tau player I can tell you that our index was not playtested worth gak. There's a lot of blueberry scented tears over how completely gutted our army was in both points cost and function. It only gets worse when some of the more well known playtesters say "nah its fine dawg" and then ignore that army getting slaughtered in the next few tournaments.


blueberry scented tears??
   
Made in us
Nasty Nob






 Brutus_Apex wrote:
Based on the fact that we got games like AoS, I'm going to go with no...

Included in terrible game design of 8th ed. 40K:

-Flyer rules not included in the main rules section and standardized for everyone
-Characters not joining units. Theres no reason or point to not allowing characters to join units, it simply complicates the game more. Hence the stupid targeting rules on characters.
-Morale Phase. Could have made the game more tactical, but now we have marines gaking their pants and running away when a squad member dies.
-Psychic Phase. More all or nothing, absolutely no skill required to use or any kind of dice management or scaling power system.
-This new way of using modifiers to hit/wound that makes absolutely no sense at all. The old way is much better and intuitive.
-The cover system
-Rules for terrain
-Various terrible codex's like Grey Knights etc.


Fully agree and it really feels like either GW doesn't playtest gak or they don't actually play the same game and only loosely follow the rules they make. Cover/Terrain rules alone is a major head scratchier because if you follow the RAW its basically extremely unlikely for units to benefit from cover.

DominayTrix wrote:
As a Tau player I can tell you that our index was not playtested worth gak. There's a lot of blueberry scented tears over how completely gutted our army was in both points cost and function. It only gets worse when some of the more well known playtesters say "nah its fine dawg" and then ignore that army getting slaughtered in the next few tournaments.


Tournament focused players seem to focus more on "does this faction have some sort of combo to win games" and not actually care about how well rounded the faction lineup is. Its notions like "Orks are fine, just spam boyz" or "Tau are fine, just spam Commanders and Drones" that really do a diservice to those factions because the majority of those faction units are not in a good place. Codex: Flyrant syndrome should never be acceptable for a game even if that one spammable unit is winning top tables.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/22 05:48:52


"Hold my shoota, I'm goin in"
Armies (7th edition points)
7000+ Points Death Skullz
4000 Points
+ + 3000 Points "The Fiery Heart of the Emperor"
3500 Points "Void Kraken" Space Marines
3000 Points "Bard's Booze Cruise" 
   
Made in us
Furious Fire Dragon





USA

 Vankraken wrote:
 Brutus_Apex wrote:
Based on the fact that we got games like AoS, I'm going to go with no...

Included in terrible game design of 8th ed. 40K:

-Flyer rules not included in the main rules section and standardized for everyone
-Characters not joining units. Theres no reason or point to not allowing characters to join units, it simply complicates the game more. Hence the stupid targeting rules on characters.
-Morale Phase. Could have made the game more tactical, but now we have marines gaking their pants and running away when a squad member dies.
-Psychic Phase. More all or nothing, absolutely no skill required to use or any kind of dice management or scaling power system.
-This new way of using modifiers to hit/wound that makes absolutely no sense at all. The old way is much better and intuitive.
-The cover system
-Rules for terrain
-Various terrible codex's like Grey Knights etc.


Fully agree and it really feels like either GW doesn't playtest gak or they don't actually play the same game and only loosely follow the rules they make. Cover/Terrain rules alone is a major head scratchier because if you follow the RAW its basically extremely unlikely for units to benefit from cover.


Well this is a guess...but I think that someone had a case of nostalgia. We have a lot of 2nd edition mixed into 8th. The biggest complaint from 2nd edtion players when 3rd came out was that the commentary was to take all the modifiers out of the game (what it is too hard to figure out some basic addition or subtractions????)

8th is a baby step back into the big boy pool per say. To clean up this edition of DiceHammer they need to go full monty and cannonball into the modifier train.

Cut down every weapon by an balanced amount....(probably half the dice needed) and figure out what modifiers to hit and to miss are needed to get the same kill rates.
Cut down on all the buffs and rerolls (that would speed up the game by 30% right there)
We all have 6th grade education, Make the modifiers a bigger part of the game. We can do the math really fast....no really we can. Trust us.

it makes no sense that a tank sitting still is just as easy to hit as that extra fast moving tank....which is just as easy to hit or not miss that lumbering Lord of War.....I mean wtf?


Perhaps make pyschics a joined once per battleround....not turn. (speed it up and make it a fun mini game like 2nd)

Terrain and LOS stuff need to matter. If you want a point and shoot game with lots of Dakka....just play on an empty board....but the rest of us that like flanking, sniping, sneaky attacks etc....I agree give us better cover rules. (modifiers to hit or to save it don't much matter to me....just make it count)

Get rid of Smite and Mortal Wounds or make it a different mechanic.....It really is a pox on elite armies.

I have no problem with the Morale phase....but perhaps join it up so its once per battle round ( I mean that marine is not running away...he is playing the hero and running his buddies back to the triage ....just call him Forest)..Just don't have any of the falling back to the table edge crap that 2nd thru 7th had. (I mean running over to that trench 3 steps sideways is not the obvious choice a panicked unit would want.....no they choose to run out in the open back to their mommys.....stupid)


 koooaei wrote:
We are rolling so many dice to have less time to realise that there is not much else to the game other than rolling so many dice.
 
   
Made in no
Regular Dakkanaut






The players are gw`s playtesting as apparently gw dont know how to break the game the way meta gamers does.

darkswordminiatures.com
Collects: 40K;Cult Mechanicus. AoS;NightHaunts. GF9;Tanks. Flames of War. Wings of Glory. Warmachine. SW Armada. 
   
Made in fi
Fixture of Dakka





 Marmatag wrote:
And i don't see how you playtest Grey Knights, and their codex, and draw the conclusion it's anything but complete garbage.


Put deliberately armies that are basically tailor made to be beaten by GK and hey presto "GK are fine!"

“Nothing has a definite nature, so people cannot be purely evil. Even so-called evil people will aspire to follow a moral path when they feel a sense of community.” – Kukai

6700 pts
5150 pts  
   
Made in us
Lustful Cultist of Slaanesh





 thekingofkings wrote:
DominayTrix wrote:
As a Tau player I can tell you that our index was not playtested worth gak. There's a lot of blueberry scented tears over how completely gutted our army was in both points cost and function. It only gets worse when some of the more well known playtesters say "nah its fine dawg" and then ignore that army getting slaughtered in the next few tournaments.


blueberry scented tears??


Tau heads are blue like blueberries.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






DominayTrix wrote:
 thekingofkings wrote:
DominayTrix wrote:
As a Tau player I can tell you that our index was not playtested worth gak. There's a lot of blueberry scented tears over how completely gutted our army was in both points cost and function. It only gets worse when some of the more well known playtesters say "nah its fine dawg" and then ignore that army getting slaughtered in the next few tournaments.


blueberry scented tears??


Tau heads are blue like blueberries.


ok, I always thought of them as fish, so it was kinda weird to me
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Bird from Hell






 thekingofkings wrote:
ok, I always thought of them as fish, so it was kinda weird to me


The Tau fish-themed names are Imperial reporting names.

Laying low in a blood filled trench
Kill time 'til my very own death
On my face I can feel the falling rain
Never see my friends again

In the smoke, in the mud and lead
Smell the fear and the feeling of dread
Soon be time to go over the wall
Rapid fire and end of us all


SELL ME YOUR FORGEWORLD ATLAS 
   
Made in it
Drifting Cronos Hungry for Souls




Italy

I think GW only playtests the starting boxes which usually are decently balanced.

Orks 9500
Space Wolves 6500
Drukhari 4500 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






 Peregrine wrote:
 thekingofkings wrote:
ok, I always thought of them as fish, so it was kinda weird to me


The Tau fish-themed names are Imperial reporting names.


they kinda look fishy, no noses, weird eyes....or maybe weird avians?
   
Made in us
Grisly Ghost Ark Driver





tneva82 wrote:
 Marmatag wrote:
And i don't see how you playtest Grey Knights, and their codex, and draw the conclusion it's anything but complete garbage.


Put deliberately armies that are basically tailor made to be beaten by GK and hey presto "GK are fine!"

Alternatively, GK's are deliberately undertuned because they exist as a counter pick force to drop into other Imperium armies. If Grey Knights were good enough to beat anybody they'd be too good against daemons.

No excuses for AdMech, though.
   
Made in us
Skilled SDF-1 Pin-Point Barrier Jockey





Mississippi

 thekingofkings wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
 thekingofkings wrote:
ok, I always thought of them as fish, so it was kinda weird to me


The Tau fish-themed names are Imperial reporting names.


they kinda look fishy, no noses, weird eyes....or maybe weird avians?


They are descended from sheep - hence the slitted nostrils, hooved feet and herd mentality ("For the greater good!! Baaaaa!!!). Their culture is based on Japanese, as is the naming convention (common Japanese naming convention for boats is "Maru", which I believe means "fish" - hence the fish/shark names for the vehicles).

It never ends well 
   
Made in gb
Bonkers Buggy Driver with Rockets





We can complain until the emperor comes back but in all honesty GW ain't gunu read or care about any of this. Their stocks are up and they just keep making what they make.
   
Made in fi
Fixture of Dakka





 Blackie wrote:
I think GW only playtests the starting boxes which usually are decently balanced.


Not really. At least 40k 4th, 5th and 6th weren't that well balanced. Hell even points were way off. 3rd ed marines had unit the dark eldars LITERALLY COULD NOT KILL. FB 8th ed elves had waaaaaay more points thanks to griffon lord.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Arachnofiend wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
 Marmatag wrote:
And i don't see how you playtest Grey Knights, and their codex, and draw the conclusion it's anything but complete garbage.


Put deliberately armies that are basically tailor made to be beaten by GK and hey presto "GK are fine!"

Alternatively, GK's are deliberately undertuned because they exist as a counter pick force to drop into other Imperium armies. If Grey Knights were good enough to beat anybody they'd be too good against daemons.

No excuses for AdMech, though.


What specifically anti daemon rules they have though?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/22 09:41:27


“Nothing has a definite nature, so people cannot be purely evil. Even so-called evil people will aspire to follow a moral path when they feel a sense of community.” – Kukai

6700 pts
5150 pts  
   
Made in gb
Most Glorious Grey Seer






How much playtesting is enough?

Consider this. If GW want to get a book on the shelves, they've got a finite time to do that in.

No matter how much or how little they actually play test, it will be nothing compared to the gaming hours the book is subjected to upon release. If they sell say, 500 copies, within that first week, and assuming an average of one game per owner and three hours per game, that's 1,500 man hours of play.

In short, the kinks will always be worked out post-release, because the sheer volume of people tinkering and using it dwarfs any playtest potential.

Fed up for Scalpers? Why not join us? 
   
Made in fi
Fixture of Dakka





 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
How much playtesting is enough?

Consider this. If GW want to get a book on the shelves, they've got a finite time to do that in.

No matter how much or how little they actually play test, it will be nothing compared to the gaming hours the book is subjected to upon release. If they sell say, 500 copies, within that first week, and assuming an average of one game per owner and three hours per game, that's 1,500 man hours of play.

In short, the kinks will always be worked out post-release, because the sheer volume of people tinkering and using it dwarfs any playtest potential.


If it takes like hour after release or even well before release players quickly identify correctly problem areas they clearly don't playtest enough. You don't even need to play game before realizing where problems are. It's not by chance most effective lists are generally figured out before codex is even released...

Hell some of the stuff are dead easy to see are wrong just by number crunching. Compare dakka jet over dethkopta. More survivable, more killing power. WTF?

“Nothing has a definite nature, so people cannot be purely evil. Even so-called evil people will aspire to follow a moral path when they feel a sense of community.” – Kukai

6700 pts
5150 pts  
   
Made in de
Jovial Plaguebearer of Nurgle




Well, everybody is playtesting the new Smite rule now so there's that.

I also tend to agree that 40K is simply too complex to achieve balance for every unit. With complex I don't mean the basic rules, but the amount of units, factions, weapons and unit types.
If you put down an army of 500 Gretchin against a Titan, they'll probably lose.
Even lotr which I usually bring up as an example of good balance in a GW game faces that problem (on a much smaller scale) - an army of only cavalry will have problems against a more diverse army, even though it's fluffy as hell for Rohan. One problem of 40K might be that it's the other way round here: usually tournament armies seem to be boring spam of the same unit and I agree with people saying that the spam detachments might be too easily available with too little drawbacks.
I think with 8th edition GW found a good way to react to the WAAC croud, though. You can't think of every possiblity, so they adjust the game when a problem comes up - and that's fine for me.
   
Made in ie
Repentia Mistress





As has been said it's likely been playtested but not to the "break the game" degree that certain online communities would like. They probably playtested for casual players (the way the game ia intended to be played) and just took whatever they felt like and maybe one or two units that were undergoing testing or set up slightly more fluffy lists against each other (hence why Grey Knights are great at killing daemons but struggle against others).

Personally our group of super casual players have had no major issues with balance so far. The one exception being Guilliman because the guy who uses him bring him in literally every single list regardless of points level. Outside of that one guy, the game works fine and plays quickly and smoothly.

 
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




GW playtest like Volvo tested their autonomous brake system...



Success!

But seriously, I think GW have done a good job of 8th overall.
   
Made in ca
Dakka Veteran





Well this is a guess...but I think that someone had a case of nostalgia. We have a lot of 2nd edition mixed into 8th. The biggest complaint from 2nd edtion players when 3rd came out was that the commentary was to take all the modifiers out of the game (what it is too hard to figure out some basic addition or subtractions????)


I’m not talking about the addition of modifiers. I have always wanted modifiers in the game. I’m a huge Warhammer Fantasy player and I certainly don’t have a problem with math.

The way they have implemented modifiers in 8th is counter intuitive. You don’t just add or subtract like you used to. It actually changes the number you’ve rolled, rather than needing a lower or higher number. -1 to hit means your 2’s become 1’s. so effectively night fight makes your plasma weapons more dangerous for no reason for example. It also means chaos marines can never trigger death to the false emperor with a power fist and makes the archite Glaive useless when combined with the new specific succubus warlord trait.

Additionally, they never added a rule that says 1’s always fail and 6’s always succeed. Even a game as terrible as AoS has this.

And now with all this mess, we wonder if they play test?

Square Bases for Life! 
   
Made in gb
Screaming Shining Spear





I think there's also a possibility that playtest feed back, especially from non-GW 'outsiders' such as the Frontline lot, could just get discounted or ignored as it doesn't fit how GW sees the game.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/22 11:47:12


"AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED." 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: