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.

Dudes who played the game pre printing of the codex ?

Martel732 wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
You certainly get something that has been tested somewhat.

People who think that there is no testing whatsoever aren't nearly creative enough. You think GW stuff is bad, but it's nowhere NEAR as bad as it could possibly be.

I'll put a dartboard up against GW any day. Because that's where they seem to get their points values from.

Just because you don't understand how a game is balanced doesnt' make it imbalanced. Nor does it mean they do no play testing either.

What we're talking about here is something that isn't perfect, but is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH better than it could be if they were, say, trying to design a bad game on purpose.

xruslanx wrote:

Honestly i'd prefer this process to a mechanical grind of playtesting, which would create a bland equality between everything.

Balance is not symmetry. It is balance. It doesn't equate to both armies being exactly the same as each other. It equates to consistency so that 1500 points of army X has a good chance to stand up to 1500 points of army Y. The armies don't have to look the same, and unit choice on both sides still has an impact on army ability, but with consistency there are fewer holes where some armies get upgunned and uppowered units for lower costs than existing codecies do or that have a slew of special rules that when they all work well can be somewhat overbearing.

Skriker

 Ailaros wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
You certainly get something that has been tested somewhat.

People who think that there is no testing whatsoever aren't nearly creative enough. You think GW stuff is bad, but it's nowhere NEAR as bad as it could possibly be.

I'll put a dartboard up against GW any day. Because that's where they seem to get their points values from.

Just because you don't understand how a game is balanced doesnt' make it imbalanced. Nor does it mean they do no play testing either.

What we're talking about here is something that isn't perfect, but is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH better than it could be if they were, say, trying to design a bad game on purpose.

No, they're apathetic. They don't do anything on purpose. That's why the good units might as well be selected by a dart board.

they do what pushes sales. End of. Done

playtesting

Hue hue hue

cammy wrote:
The issue is not the play testing its more how they then use this to feedback into the rules. Gw are more about the 'feel' of it and if it is 'cool' rather then any imbalance issues it will cause.

And there it is.

It is further exacerbated by the fact that even after decades of it being clear that people play the rules AS WRITTEN and not by the silly spirit of the rules, they still can't be bothered to tighten up their language and make rules clear AND concise with zero ambiguity. It really isn't that hard to do that when it comes down to it, but they seem incapable of doing so.

Skriker

 Ailaros wrote:
Just because you don't understand how a game is balanced doesnt' make it imbalanced.

There is no hidden balance in 40k that we just don't understand. The game is an unbalanced mess. FFS, you of all people should understand this given how much you complain about how 40k is nothing but fun-destroying gunlines and everything else has been nerfed into futility.

Nor does it mean they do no play testing either.

They might play an occasional game for fun, but when they fail to fix even the most obvious mistakes it's pretty clear that there is no meaningful playtesting.

What we're talking about here is something that isn't perfect, but is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH better than it could be if they were, say, trying to design a bad game on purpose.

Which is a ridiculous straw man. Nobody is claiming that GW is making a bad game deliberately, they just don't care enough to do better. They assign rules and point values to their model kits based on what "seems right" and then don't bother to test that assumption. And the result is garbage.

Whenever video games are released people quickly find glitches or bugs or issues that they can EXPLOIT. The same is very true for Wargames too. No amount of play testing will stop people finding loop holes or issues that can be exploited for the players benifit. However unlike a video game they cant just release a patch, so it shows more in wargames.

Games workshop probably puts heaps of effort into playtesting BUT their rules arent written too well so unlike other gaming systems its easy to find flaws very quickly.

But at the end of the day whos fault is it, the players for exploiting the system, or the guys that wrote it and failed to see it from the hundreds of different angels us players as a massed group can look at it?

Its like at college, the admin put blocks on certain internet sites (particularily dodgy sites and video game sites) but we kept finding ways around internet blocks (for game purposes) and no matter what they did us students always found ways around it. They had the best intentions and a huge budget but nothing can stop the target audience (or victims) from finding a way to exploit the system.

Sadly 40k is full of people exploiting the system (in my opinion) through spam lists and OP combos etc.

In my opinion 40k is an absolutely awesome game if you weed out all the power gamers and are left with a bunch of guys who choose units they enjoy and play competatively but to the point where everyone has fun.

Not GW fault entirely but the players who exploit the game who are at fault.

No, it's GWs fault. If they wrote rules that couldn't be exploited, then no one would have to self-nerf.

I wouldnt call not taking 7 riptides self nerfing, id call that good sportsmanship and playing the game properly. Self nerfing is taking less points than the game size.

No, I won't fault someone for building a quality legal list. The seven riptides should be prohibited by balanced list building rules.

Self-nerfing is also taking one of GW's derp derp units in a slot that could be a Riptide or a Helldrake. It all goes back to GW not balancing units.

Or by players not being dirtbags and wanting nothing but to table people at the expense of fun... Its easy to play 40k without exploiting it, if players played properly and didnt make lists like the above then no one would complain.

Martel732 wrote:
No, I won't fault someone for building a quality legal list. The seven riptides should be prohibited by balanced list building rules.

This. Stop making excuses for GW. If the Riptide-spam list is too powerful to play then GW should have taken the time to discover it and make it impossible. The fact that it's possible pretty clearly demonstrates that GW doesn't even do basic playtesting, since it's not exactly hard to discover that list if you spend more than a few minutes with the codex.

Stop making excuses for dirtbag players if people found that its not very fun to play games like that they would take the time and courtesy to not play those kinds of lists.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Or by players not being dirtbags and wanting nothing but to table people at the expense of fun... Its easy to play 40k without exploiting it, if players played properly and didnt make lists like the above then no one would complain.

The question here is whether GW playtests, not whether the players should compensate for GW's lack of playtesting. The fact that you can play 40k and enjoy it as long as you make a major effort to avoid using all of the balance problems doesn't excuse GW's lazy and incompetent game design.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Swastakowey wrote:
Stop making excuses for dirtbag players if people found that its not very fun to play games like that they would take the time and courtesy to not play those kinds of lists.

And, again, those lists shouldn't be possible. The fact that they exist proves that GW doesn't playtest.

It takes no effort to play the game in a fun good sportsmanshippy way. It takes all parties to make it work and me and all my friends can make it work so clearly the problem lies with the players.

 Swastakowey wrote:
It takes no effort to play the game in a fun good sportsmanshippy way. It takes all parties to make it work and me and all my friends can make it work so clearly the problem lies with the players.

Sportsmanship isnt the issue here. The problem is that these lists are possible.

You cant tell me that GW makes people buy and use the models in an OP way. Thats the players choice. So who is at fault. I point the finger at the guy who went out of his way to buy and use the models the way they do. Simple.

 Swastakowey wrote:
You cant tell me that GW makes people buy and use the models in an OP way. Thats the players choice. So who is at fault. I point the finger at the guy who went out of his way to buy and use the models the way they do. Simple.

Sure, they didnt force it but they allowed it. The fact that its perfectly legal without even twisting the wording of the rules speaks poorly of gee dubs. You cant expect people to not take the best lists they can. Thats going against human nature.

 Swastakowey wrote:
You cant tell me that GW makes people buy and use the models in an OP way. Thats the players choice. So who is at fault. I point the finger at the guy who went out of his way to buy and use the models the way they do. Simple.

In no way should any game be reliant on its players' good nature in order to ensure both parties have a good time.

I should, and in other systems, can, be able to sit down for a game with the most foaming-at-the-mouth WAAC player and still be confident of enjoying a game, because the rules protect me from him abusing anything.

As much fondness as I have for 40K, it falls away short of that.

 Swastakowey wrote:
You cant tell me that GW makes people buy and use the models in an OP way. Thats the players choice. So who is at fault. I point the finger at the guy who went out of his way to buy and use the models the way they do. Simple.

No, it's GW's fault for allowing it in the first place. If a list with 5 Riptides is too powerful then don't let Tau ally with Farsight. If re-rollable 2++ death stars are overpowered and not fun add a rule that invulnerable saves can never be re-rolled. Etc. No amount of blaming "WAAC abusers" excuses GW's complete incompetence at balancing the game.

They play test... but not to the extent of making things crazy balanced. It's kind of a lose - lose situation for them though. In the end, we want them to update everything quickly, and this year they have just about pumped out a book a month, which on the one hand finally makes us happy... but to do that, they can't be play testing anything TOO much.

They play test longer, they lose because we're upset they're not releasing books, they play test too little and pump out books for us and we're angry they didn't play test them enough. Lose - lose.

I don't normally like to stand up for GW on this issue, but let's face facts, you can please some people some of the time, but you can never please everyone all the time.

 Swastakowey wrote:
It takes no effort to play the game in a fun good sportsmanshippy way.

Nonsense. You have to spend a lot of effort carefully balancing your list so you don't accidentally bring something too powerful but also don't nerf yourself to the point that your opponent crushes you too easily, you have to avoid buying the overpowered models even if you think they're cool, etc. Essentially you have to do all the playtesting and balance work that GW is supposed to be doing when they demand $50 for a rulebook.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Matt1785 wrote:
In the end, we want them to update everything quickly, and this year they have just about pumped out a book a month, which on the one hand finally makes us happy... but to do that, they can't be play testing anything TOO much.

Sure they can. They just need to hire more people to playtest and accept that playtesting is a full time job, not something you do for fun on your lunch break.

(And of course combining all the redundant marine armies into a single book would help a lot.)

 Swastakowey wrote:
You cant tell me that GW makes people buy and use the models in an OP way. Thats the players choice. So who is at fault. I point the finger at the guy who went out of his way to buy and use the models the way they do. Simple.

It's not that simple. GW shouldn't have allowed it to happen in the first part. They are incredibly lazy.

 Peregrine wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Matt1785 wrote:
In the end, we want them to update everything quickly, and this year they have just about pumped out a book a month, which on the one hand finally makes us happy... but to do that, they can't be play testing anything TOO much.

Sure they can. They just need to hire more people to playtest and accept that playtesting is a full time job, not something you do for fun on your lunch break.

(And of course combining all the redundant marine armies into a single book would help a lot.)

My comment was taking into account only their CURRENT staff. Sure, adding people would allow for more time to be spent on more things. But to be honest, I think they really threw a wrench in their own faces with the Allies table considering I don't find AS many balance issues with the Fantasy books (Don't quote me as saying they don't exist in Fantasy, but there are fewer combos because of single book armies). Again, lose-lose. Some wanted allies, some didn't. They please a few people, made the rest of us unhappy.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
It takes no effort to play the game in a fun good sportsmanshippy way.

Sure they can. They just need to hire more people to playtest and accept that playtesting is a full time job, not something you do for fun on your lunch break.

(And of course combining all the redundant marine armies into a single book would help a lot.)

Nah, honestly an open beta would be completely welcome and the community would probably be able to reflect that to GW.
But seeing that GW doesn't even have a forum anymore there's not much of a medium for them to do that.

Im simply saying not all the blame is on GW as its perfectly easy, fun and possible to p-lay fun balanced lists and enjoy the game win or loose.

Nobody likes that guy who spent tonnes of money buying all the decent stuff and knows that they will table all our armies simply because we made armies we enjoy. Not armies designed to win win win.

And goodwill has to start somewhere, so instead of blaming other people and continuing on playing the game in a horribly unbalanced way perhaps start playing it nicely and properly and many people will begin to follow.

Thats how we weeded out a lot of the power gaming at the the club i go to. All it takes for those Power Gamers nobody likes to realize when the player on the other side is not having fun. If both players made a list designed to have fun, not to utterly crush then everyone enjoys it more.

So instead of blaming GW look at yourselves (if your one of "THOSE" players) and play better. Its people like you guys that push a lot of people away from gaming. Especially in 40k.

Of course they play test.....

The fact that there are all they incredibly unbalanced things outside of APOC is purely a matter of typing errors on the final proofs for the last 3 codices.

That would never happen with electronic versions..... wait what's that about 7 Riptide armies?

How could that have happened with proper play testing?

 Swastakowey wrote:
Im simply saying not all the blame is on GW as its perfectly easy, fun and possible to p-lay fun balanced lists and enjoy the game win or loose.

Sorry, but when your answer is "but you can just ignore all of the unbalanced stuff" GW gets all of the blame.

Nobody likes that guy who spent tonnes of money buying all the decent stuff and knows that they will table all our armies simply because we made armies we enjoy. Not armies designed to win win win.

Which is why it's bad that GW is too lazy and/or incompetent to do a good job of balancing the game.

So instead of blaming GW look at yourselves (if your one of "THOSE" players) and play better. Its people like you guys that push a lot of people away from gaming. Especially in 40k.

But, again, that's not the question here. This is a discussion of GW's playtesting (or lack of playtesting), not a discussion of how to compensate for GW's lazy unprofessional game design and still somehow have a fun game.