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.

Does anyone have a scheme for playtesting Marines that might have highlighted more issues? If you had the job of leading a team of playtesters to effectively test a faction how do you set it up? You have 20 playtesters that play a total of 40 games over the course of three weeks with the codex.

Here is my format:

No changes are made while playtesting takes place. A battle report formula is made that every playtester must follow and fill out after playing with or against the codex. This formula is made in excel and includes Detachments used (including Chapter), units used, Stratagems used and how many times they were used, Relics and WL traits used by both players as well as feelings on each of those. Mission played, whether the player went first or second, VP score and win/draw/loss status at the end of the game are recorded as well.

Each unit gets split into a number of tests that have to be done for that unit, each playtester gets a stack of tests they have to perform. Each unit is assigned a playtester that becomes the master tester of that unit and has the responsibility of collating the experiences of all the playtesters on their experiences with and against that unit.

1: Run one or more naked min-size x units.
2: Run a single min-size blinged out x unit.
3: Run a single max-sized x unit.
5: Run three max-size naked x units.
6: Run three max-size blinged out x units.

Each Relic, WL trait, psychic power and Stratagem is assigned to playtester in the same way, that player will be the master tester for that option. The following tests are distributed among all players:

6: Use y Stratagem or psychic power once.
7: Use y Stratagem or psychic power several times.
8: Use z WL trait or Relic.

A Facebook group is formed and after a playtest the tester posts a battle report as well as thoughts on every option used, then every relevant master tester is tagged in the post. Play-by-play is excluded from battle reports but may be posted in a separate document if the tester wishes to do so.

Nice idea but needs to be more verbose, are you proposing they make use of unit X in 2k games for example or 100 PL, 500 points, 1500 points etc.

You'd also have to factor in missions and opponents as well, the 40 games are worth little if you never test against say orks who then hard counter the new army out of existence.

Again this is a bit of an "in an ideal world" because the same playtesters will have other stuff to as well in reality.

That and if you don't make amendments until after the 3rd week, you then need another round of testing the new revisions, a weekly update would be better.

I don't think this kind of systematic testing makes sense.

Math hammer should be applied to every option as a sanity check of course, but actual play testing needs to be more nuanced, and based around how real games actually play out.

There are so many combinations that obviously not problematic and testing every one is a massive waste of resources. Letting experienced players go through every option and test what they feel needs testing is going to far better returns than this method.

 Stux wrote:
I don't think this kind of systematic testing makes sense.

Math hammer should be applied to every option as a sanity check of course, but actual play testing needs to be more nuanced, and based around how real games actually play out.

There are so many combinations that obviously not problematic and testing every one is a massive waste of resources. Letting experienced players go through every option and test what they feel needs testing is going to far better returns than this method.

Hold up I never said anyone at GW was going to do math! Don't come here with your assault math and try to balance the game, assume that everything is a buggy mess of poorly written and balanced rules when you as head playtester get it handed over, it'll still have nice graphic design though so you have that going for you. Where you find experienced playtesters? I figure I'd just hire the people too stupid to be with the cleaning crew to do the playtesting, just like how GW hires their current playtesters I imagine. I still think with my method I could whip up some really good internal and external balance even with just 2 games per player and a crew of cleaning assistants playing only a couple of games and sharing battle reports between each other.

Real games play out based on what people think is cool and what people think is effective. The gradual changes that come from nerfing the most effective choices and slowly buffing things that aren't chosen cannot be done with 40 games over 3 weeks IMO and you're going to miss a bazillion options that just becomes filler chaff when you do things this way. I think 90% of options should be cool or useful and every unit needs to be usable, gut feeling has never served GW well, why do you think it will in the future?

You'll waste a lot of time with that kind of testing. Testers should try to make the most effective lists they can and get feedback with the designer on what the did and didn't choose and why.

In terms of game types you'd want more along the lines of 'play a alpha styike gunline, play a grinding horde, play a fast melee force, etc'

And as has been said apply a basic pass of mathhammer, though at the moment that has the problem of the long list of freebies you can get on a unit that completely alters its viability in a game. For example - three S8 AP -2 D2 attacks or two S6 AP -2 D2 attacks, which is better? It's the same unit.

Dudeface wrote:
Nice idea but needs to be more verbose, are you proposing they make use of unit X in 2k games for example or 100 PL, 500 points, 1500 points etc.

You'd also have to factor in missions and opponents as well, the 40 games are worth little if you never test against say orks who then hard counter the new army out of existence.

Again this is a bit of an "in an ideal world" because the same playtesters will have other stuff to as well in reality.

That and if you don't make amendments until after the 3rd week, you then need another round of testing the new revisions, a weekly update would be better.

Well considering we don't play vs AI, even games vs one opponent getting trashed show that something is wrong. There really shouldn't be match ups, that are auto loses.

Plus while I think that testing is super important, in the end it is designs foult, if something is broken. I know people like to say that math doesn't prove anything, but when we arrive at a point where stuff is running around with +2 re-rolling 1s, then probably something was over done, specially if it has no bad sides. For example. maybe IH are not wrong. maybe all books should be like the IH one, But there should be draw backs to having a +2 re-roll 1s shoting. Maybe the "machine" mind makes the IH over focus, and they have to shot a unit that lost wounds or models that turn till it is dead. Maybe they can't assault stuff that was shot, or shot things that got assaulted(no overwatch, no pistol use), because the machine is not flexible. w40k seems to be full of list X++ , that make list X and X+ bad, because X++ is just always better.

Maybe khorn berzerkers are really deadly in melee, and really fast at reaching melee, but if you over kill with them, then the over kill wounds caused are not gone, they start striking each other like the crazy loons that they are. Maybe DG are super resilient, slow etc But anything non nurgle, like lets say an ahriman, risks losing wounds when standing next to them. Would also give space to some unique stuff. Like Abadon for example would be affected by all the plus sides of all marks, but non of the negatives.

Points seems to not be enough of limiter as far as army balance goes. Maybe armies should come with build in handicaps. For example , yeah I know people hate it when I talk about GK, the demon get back rule would be awesome, if GK really were very good at killing demons, maybe both the GK and demon player would have to play a different game when they play against each other, comparing to how they play vs any other faction.

Same could happen to slanesh stuff vs eldar. Or something like orcs WAAGH getting stronger the more of them fight or die.

There’s a lot of play test work that should be done before you even throw a model down on the board, much less do full games. Full games really should be the last step you do as verification that all your pre-work is valid.

For play testing, you want at least three cycles:

1) Straight comparison - mostly math here, you compare how the model stacks up against other of its ilk and against favored enemies.

2) Straight battles - run out a couple of rounds of combat vs. various units. Similar to what you see in the Jain Zar vs. Drakhar article. At this point you’re doing gross testing of the unit itself in actual play, possibly using unit combos if it is supposed to synergize with other units.

3) Full battles - at this point, your previous two runs should have let you do numerous “in-vacuum” tests, and your seeing how the unit runs in full army mode for any unexpected wackiness, as these sorts of tests take the longest time. These are also the tests where the designers should be on the sidelines, just taking notes and the play testing should be done by players who have not been involved with the unit’s design - they’re running them cold, without preconceived notions of how they should be used.