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.

GW Not Play Testing AoS? [Walls o' Text, Ranting...YMMV]


Everyone keeps talking about how GW does not 'Play-Test' Their Games. I think they do, but it is not what most of us think of as 'Play-Testing'.
I think their play-testing is extensive, but with a small group of people.

I have two example of what I am talking about.

1st: 4th D&D
It was not created 'In House'. It was sent out to many groups and used their input to build it.
And it ended up not being what part of the community wanted after a long term 'Play Test'.

2nd] I have myself built two Modern Setting Table Top Games [Both called Red Army/Blue Army and they were maybe 15-20 pages each including charts] back in the mid 90s that were quickly broken as soon someone other than 'My Development Team' was given the rules to play with. One of these did not use points, but an 'Order of Battle' type FoC.

We spent well over a year play testing RA/BA among ourselves and came out with what we thought was a good quick balanced, no RAW argument game.

Then we handed it over to about a half dozen other gamers who played a variety of games. Advanced Squad Leader, Warhammer 40k and a few of the WWII ones out there that I forgot the names of.

Long Story Short, they all came back with tones of issues and then showed us how they managed to Break the Game at every point is seemed.

We went back and spent another year fixing the issues (or at least we though) and tried it once more giving it back to the other group. We learned more than a few things that summer.

1] Everyone has their own idea of how a game is supposed to work.
2] The moment you fix something for one group, it breaks it for the next.
3] Play-testing is not necessary the answer to all of your issues with a game.
4] A game has to start from some point and then evolve, that is why there are 'Editions'.

Back to the D&D Issue, but from my groups point of view.
Or Primary DM had a 2” 3 ring binder of house rules going back to the White Box Set [Pre 1st Edition]. 4th Edition Addressed 90% of his issues and many of them in [a better way than he did in our opinion]. Though they 'Fixed' all of the 'Broken' parts of D&D He LOATHED 4th Edition. Not because they turned into “D&D The Magic: The Gathering Card Game” as he called it. He LOATHED it because they 'Did Not Fix It His Way'.

This is what I think is what is going on with AoS. I read for years from different people, including my group that WHFB was just to complicated and the Army's were not Balance and how it became 'Hero-Hammer, Then Heroes did not matter and then Hero-Hammer' again and again.

WHFB was starting to Die like an old cancer ridden beloved Pet. So they decided to put it down because they did not want it to suffer, so they took it into the park and let him play all day [End of Times] before putting bullet it his scull.

However before they had to replace it with something. Somewhere someone came up with the idea of making the game simple so others could just enjoy the game and have to add the “Read The Rule Book Phase” to go along with “Argue About the Rule Phase”. So they took the 8th Edition Rule Book and ran it though a paper-shredder.
Maybe they went to far, maybe not.

Then they looked at what was needed.
1] A way to have the Models Move.
2] A way to have the Models Fight.
3] A way to have an Army win.
4] To make sure both sides had fun.
5] Sell More Models.

Those thing are what was needed so that is what they included and not much more. Add some fluff crated of a 'Spot of Tea' and finished except for one thing, a balance system.

Nothing seemed to work so I think it happened like this. Reginald and Charles were at the Pup getting ready to play the new rules.
Reginald: Can we get on with the game?
Charles: Sorry I am still working on my list.
Reginald: Look we have an hour and a half before they close the place down.
Charles: Fine.
(Charles just puts down a bunch of units on the table)
Reginald: So how many points is that?
Charles: {Shrugs} Who cares lets just try out how the new casting works.
Reginald: Ok, what the heck.
(Reginald puts down what he thinks looks like an equal force.)
(Then they spend the next hour playing a game over a few pints and have a good time)
Reginald: Well that was fun and exiting.
Charles: Yes it was, so how many points was that.
Reginald: I don’t have a clue...and I don’t think it mattered.
Charles: You are right.
Reginald: Who need points?
Charles: {Shrugs} Wait till the guys here about this.

That summed up how out later games of RA/BA started to go. I would just take a US Combined Arms Brigade vs. a Russian Guards Regiment. That was our only real balance. We had fun and enjoyed it.
When the other guys tried it they took everything either to seriously or one would do thing like take nothing, but Anti-Tank or Infantry. We had one who took his Artillery Company and used nothing but FASCAM. We had one other who only went after BMPs with his A-10s and ignored the T-72 because the BMPs were easier to kill, not for any tactical reason, he just like making blow up.
Now this was not how the game was meant to be played. Both our little army books we included had a basic rundown of US and Soviet Doctrines that when used made the game work. Once one side stopped using the Doctrines it feel apart quickly. They did have a good time though.

I think this is one of the problems AoS is having, a lot are not playing the game as it was envision by the Game Designers. Some because they are just not the Game Designers and don’t understand what they were going for and some because they want to 'Break the Game' because that is the way they play or to 'Show How Bad The Game Is'.

Now this is me Ranting [A little or A lot, I don’t think that is important] and rambling on, but part of this is just wanting people to stop bashing others over their 'Like or Dis-Like' over the game. To some this might be considered Tolling. I don’t think it is because I want to bring up a real discussion not dozen of pages of...


Poster A] How about trying I don’t like the game because I don’t like the Game.
Poster B] Well I like the game it works for me!
Poster C] Well that sounds reasonable.
I know we will never see this, but we are talking about Fantasy here.

I got back into playing 40K about 3 months ago, right about the time the GW stores replaced all the 8th Edition rule books with the blue 'AoS is coming' cards. I owned a bunch of DE models, had them painted and everything, but I never had enough to play a 'full' game. Every time I wanted to set up a game with people at my FLGS, I was told I didn't have enough points to make the game worth while. So I've played maybe 3 matches of WHFB, ever.

Then I see this AoS thing, and I'm getting pretty pumped. 'Maybe I can use those DE models again!' I though, and I waited eagerly to get my hands on the rules.

In the mean time I got on the forums, mostly DakkaDakka, and a little Warseer. All I could see, was thread, after thread, after thread, of people bashing the game. It go so depressing after a point that, even before the starter box came out that I wanted nothing to do with AoS.

A couple weeks go by and I'm in my local GW, and with a heavy amount of skepticism, I have a few matches with a stranger I just met. And contrary to what the people on the forums were saying, I had a great time. We were laughing, rolling dice, joking about how only peasants and plebians could enjoy a game so simple as AoS, and by the end of it, I decided I need to be careful of allowing other people's negativity about something affect my judgement of it. Me and that 'stranger' now play together regularly, and I wouldn't have made this new friend if I had listened to the forums and stayed away.

I don't want the discussions about AoS to go away, I just wish the negativity for negativity's sake would disappear.

 IcarusRising wrote:
I don't want the discussions about AoS to go away, I just wish the negativity for negativity's sake would disappear.

I feel so much that way.
I am starting to think those places it is not moving is because of the loudest voices are the ones with Hate, not the ones who might really like the game are not buying it just don't want to deal with it, a shame really.

 Anpu42 wrote:

 IcarusRising wrote:
I don't want the discussions about AoS to go away, I just wish the negativity for negativity's sake would disappear.

I feel so much that way.
I am starting to think those places it is not moving is because of the loudest voices are the ones with Hate, not the ones who might really like the game are not buying it just don't want to deal with it, a shame really.

Just be careful not to lump all criticism as "haterz hatin'." That seems to be a trend.
Some people legitimately dislike almost everything about AOS. They have their legitimate reasons.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 IcarusRising wrote:
I don't want the discussions about AoS to go away, I just wish the negativity for negativity's sake would disappear.

I feel so much that way.
I am starting to think those places it is not moving is because of the loudest voices are the ones with Hate, not the ones who might really like the game are not buying it just don't want to deal with it, a shame really.

Just be careful not to lump all criticism as "haterz hatin'." That seems to be a trend.
Some people legitimately dislike almost everything about AOS. They have their legitimate reasons.

I don't have an issue with someone not liking any game, but I have an issue with people who tell people who go after those who like the game.

In an already feeble attempt to get back on track. [I am sorry for putting it that way, but I can already see where this is going to go. And I will take full credit for derailing in my opening rant.]

I think a lot of people out they decry GW for inadequate Play-Testing and blame them and the way the game plays on no Play-Testing. I know from personal Experience that it is not that easy to Play Test a Game and make it so everyone is happy, It Just Can Not Be Done!

Well in my area the same hater groups were forming and I admit I was skeptical as well. That said, the two people that are playing (myself included) have increased to 10 people in less than a month and we just converted another 40k player last night into an AoS fan. It's catching on for sure and I think all the irrational hearsay at my local shop is dwindling to small wisper.

So far Ive only found one person who hasn't liked it and they are spouting off the same tired lines the hate groups complain about. I'm sure her tune will change in another month.

Playtesting AoS?
Not sure if this has been necessary.
The rule set can be overlooked in a minute and the buffs and debuffs in the warscrolls are all similar over all factions.
The only issue is summoning.

 Anpu42 wrote:


I think a lot of people out they decry GW for inadequate Play-Testing and blame them and the way the game plays on no Play-Testing. I know from personal Experience that it is not that easy to Play Test a Game and make it so everyone is happy, It Just Can Not Be Done!

So because it's not easy, it shouldn't be done?

Thing is it's not easy but it has to be done. you need to iron out the kinks. '

I dunno, privateer press and recently, wyrd did a free world wide beta for the current versions of their games. Leveraged the entire community. Rather than a few people at home with a home made red vs blue rules set. It got people engaged and interested, and the results of that playtesting went towards far better, more watertight and focused games. Funnily enough, pretty much everyone thst played ended up happy with the improvements. WMH became a vastly better game (hence its success since) and I've heard nothing but good things about malifaux since.

Deadnight wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:


I think a lot of people out they decry GW for inadequate Play-Testing and blame them and the way the game plays on no Play-Testing. I know from personal Experience that it is not that easy to Play Test a Game and make it so everyone is happy, It Just Can Not Be Done!

So because it's not easy, it shouldn't be done?

Thing is it's not easy but it has to be done. you need to iron out the kinks. '

I dunno, privateer press and recently, wyrd did a free world wide beta for the current versions of their games. Leveraged the entire community. Rather than a few people at home with a home made red vs blue rules set. It got people engaged and interested, and the results of that playtesting went towards far better, more watertight and focused games. Funnily enough, pretty much everyone thst played ended up happy with the improvements. WMH became a vastly better game (hence its success since) and I've heard nothing but good things about malifaux since.

Malifaux might be a great game, but I had the local promoter show it to me, we played a few games and did not care for it at all, I was not unhappy with the game, but I was not happy with it either. Don't get me wrong, I Love the Models, but I did not care for their game mechanics.

So to ME, they failed to make a good enjoyable game even with all of their 'Play-Testing.'

GW stopped playtesting their games a long time ago. They have repeatedly made clear that they do not care about the rules and are a model company that sells models, not games.

AoS doesn't stand out then, or takes a special place. By not balancing it on purpose, I don't think playtesting would have done much anyway.

 Anpu42 wrote:

 IcarusRising wrote:
I don't want the discussions about AoS to go away, I just wish the negativity for negativity's sake would disappear.

I feel so much that way.
I am starting to think those places it is not moving is because of the loudest voices are the ones with Hate, not the ones who might really like the game are not buying it just don't want to deal with it, a shame really.

The over all feel of this forum (and many others) has been overwhelming negative for a long time, despite what edition of what game was currently being played, people hated it for a host of reasons. AoS will not be everyone's cup of tea but I for one enjoy it, and I've played every edition since 3rd. What I don't get is why those who claim to have left behind GW products continue to hang around like a fart in an elevator just to remind everyone that they left...as if those who currently play and enjoy a game will miss the negative rants. If you don't like something that's fine. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but why not move on to something more constructive and in line with what you actually like?

 Sigvatr wrote:
GW stopped playtesting their games a long time ago.

It is somewhat amazing that there are people who actually believe this. That something that hangs together as well as 40k does, with all those different armies and units, with players numbering in the hundreds of thousands across the world, is just miracled into existence.

Put another way, if something like 40k can be created without playtesting, then GW have a bona fide genius sitting in their design studio.

Of course they playtest. You cannot create these games without it.

As for AoS, there seems to be remarkably few rules issues cropping up for something that has so broad a reach...

 Anpu42 wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:


I think a lot of people out they decry GW for inadequate Play-Testing and blame them and the way the game plays on no Play-Testing. I know from personal Experience that it is not that easy to Play Test a Game and make it so everyone is happy, It Just Can Not Be Done!

So because it's not easy, it shouldn't be done?

Thing is it's not easy but it has to be done. you need to iron out the kinks. '

I dunno, privateer press and recently, wyrd did a free world wide beta for the current versions of their games. Leveraged the entire community. Rather than a few people at home with a home made red vs blue rules set. It got people engaged and interested, and the results of that playtesting went towards far better, more watertight and focused games. Funnily enough, pretty much everyone thst played ended up happy with the improvements. WMH became a vastly better game (hence its success since) and I've heard nothing but good things about malifaux since.

Malifaux might be a great game, but I had the local promoter show it to me, we played a few games and did not care for it at all, I was not unhappy with the game, but I was not happy with it either. Don't get me wrong, I Love the Models, but I did not care for their game mechanics.

So to ME, they failed to make a good enjoyable game even with all of their 'Play-Testing.'

Not really the point though. You personally might not like it, but the play testing wasn't to make a game that absolutely literally everyone will enjoy, it was to make the game as balanced as they could. Play testing isn't really about the enjoyment of the game (or at least when most people talk about GW not playtesting, that's not what they mean) it's about balance.

MongooseMatt wrote:

Of course they playtest. You cannot create these games without it.

Playtest is internal. It's unlike other companies that keep having feedback from players in the world, not just their design Studio. Thus, they only have one vision; their own. That's why there are so many unclear rules in their games.

As for AoS, there seems to be remarkably few rules issues cropping up for something that has so broad a reach...

Then you didn't read the "AoS You Made That Call" subsection. For 4 pages, I find there are too many questions for something said to be natural. Core rules aren't very clear in themselves - and they are actually written for someone who already knows how a wargame with models works.

I have two questions about this way to play the game. First how does reggi know that the force are equal and what stops him from going for getting an edge and claiming the armies are balance? Second is , isn't alcohol intoxication kind of a limiting both players ability to judge how the game actualy was?

 Sarouan wrote:

MongooseMatt wrote:

Of course they playtest. You cannot create these games without it.

Playtest is internal. It's unlike other companies that keep having feedback from players in the world, not just their design Studio. Thus, they only have one vision; their own. That's why there are so many unclear rules in their games.

I think you're confusing GW with the Borg. Even if GW do only test within the design studio (which is hard to believe, they probably brought in more people under NDA) that design studio isn't filled with clones of Matt Ward, they'd have all had their own visions of what AoS is.

 Sarouan wrote:

As for AoS, there seems to be remarkably few rules issues cropping up for something that has so broad a reach...

Then you didn't read the "AoS You Made That Call" subsection. For 4 pages, I find there are too many questions for something said to be natural. Core rules aren't very clear in themselves - and they are actually written for someone who already knows how a wargame with models works.

That couldn't be more untrue. The rules are a breeze to decipher and probably favour players new to wargames than otherwise. Most of the problems probably come down to the warscrolls themselves or gamers feeling too comfortable with the rules and skimming them.

ChazLikesCake wrote:


I think you're confusing GW with the Borg. Even if GW do only test within the design studio (which is hard to believe, they probably brought in more people under NDA).

Nope. They used to, but Not any more. Gw ended external play testing groups when the fifth ed 40k rules were leaked (nda's didn't help). My mates were one of the playtest groups, and some had their names in the special thanks sections of various codices. I heard some interesting stories back in the day

MongooseMatt wrote:
[l
It is somewhat amazing that there are people who actually believe this.
.

I know the playtesters, and I remember when gw ended the programme. Not that they listened much to the playtesters in the first place either. Nothing amazing about it.

MongooseMatt wrote:
That something that hangs together as well as 40k does, with all those different armies and units, with players numbering in the hundreds of thousands across the world, is just miracled into existence....

It hangs together really well? Been to ymdc recently? Other games have massive variety and do a far better job of both balance and clarity of rules. Regarding the hundreds of thousands of players bear in mind gw was all there was for decades. Not hard to build up a player base when you're the only game in town. And that's been steadily eroding these last few years.
M

MongooseMatt wrote:

Put another way, if something like 40k can be created without playtesting, then GW have a bona fide genius sitting in their design studio.
Of course they playtest. You cannot create these games without it..

They did playtest. Back in the day. And sure, now they might run through a few games to see if things work, but it's a far cry from pp's worldwide beta test for wmh mk2.

You can create without play testing. The question is sustaining what you create. Gw are more interested in changing their games than improving them.

MongooseMatt wrote:

As for AoS, there seems to be remarkably few rules issues cropping up for something that has so broad a reach...

.

ita been out a month...

Sure, GW did that some time ago. Now they don't because of their paranoia about information leak. We had confirmation of this before, by former players that were in the previous playtesting program.

ChazLikesCake wrote:

That couldn't be more untrue. The rules are a breeze to decipher and probably favour players new to wargames than otherwise. Most of the problems probably come down to the warscrolls themselves or gamers feeling too comfortable with the rules and skimming them.

If people keep arguing about such a basic question like "does a model with two of the same weapon attack with both of their unique profile or just once with the special rules of rerolling 1 to hit?", then it's because it's not clear in the core rules (that describe how to attack in a general way).

They're a breeze if you are already used to wargames (or GW games). But if you're completely new and begin with this, it's not so simple. A lot of "obvious things" are not told in the details - there is a reason why there are only 4 pages of rules, after all. Trouble is, when you describe core rules of a game system, you have to take into account the players don't necessarily know your mind - so assuming the reader doesn't know anything is a good thing to keep in your head when writing the rules.

AoS isn't really an example for that. Saying it's only the warscrolls isn't exactly true; there are some serious holes in the core rules as well. People usually don't care because they don't take AoS too seriously and make their own rules anyway. And I would say they are right.

Yeah, as Deadnight said, GW do not really playtest in the sense that they play the game to see if there are issues with the gameplay or exploitability of the rules. They used to, to varying degrees, but any play of the gametesting now is relegated to the studio, who seem to be under a lot of pressure to pump out a lot of product without time for review.

I know there is a blurb out there (somewhere) about how, during a Space Marine codex "testing," the guys in the studio were using Chaplains a lot, assumably for personal reasons. Based on the fact that they were being used a lot, they decided to nerf them slightly, while buffing Librarians in response. This lead to the the very lopsided level of abilities between the two units, and all because they interpreted their personal preference for units as balance of the game.

Fast forward to the release of the WDW for the Imperial Knights, and Jervis Johnson has a very specific story about how they balanced the Imperial Knights. It basically amounted to them coming up with a rough value they think it should be from eye-balling, and then making a slight tweak depending on the attitudes of the studio guys, and letting loose the rules.

Coming up to the current time, it seems, at least with AOS and the proliferation of mega formations in 40k, that GW just doesn't care about balance at all. Which is *okay* in terms of AOS- we aren't paying any money, so the expectation on high quality doesn't necessarily correlate (it's a much bigger issue in 40k these days). However, it does still make people question purchasing a $50 box of Sigmarites if the game underneath is not well-built/supporting of variable experiences. Other companies like Corvus Beli seem to be able to handle free well-made rules with their miniatures. I applaud GW for making the rules to AOS free, but at the same time I completely understand that with no price comes much lesser quality. It's just a trade-off.

Players can balance AoS far better than the studio can. A gaming group will quickly identify relative strengths and weaknesses and tailor their armies to what the other person's putting down. Not much studio play testing needed.

 Accolade wrote:
Yeah, as Deadnight said, GW do not really playtest in the sense that they play the game to see if there are issues with the gameplay or exploitability of the rules. They used to, to varying degrees, but any play of the gametesting now is relegated to the studio, who seem to be under a lot of pressure to pump out a lot of product without time for review.

I know there is a blurb out there (somewhere) about how, during a Space Marine codex "testing," the guys in the studio were using Chaplains a lot, assumably for personal reasons. Based on the fact that they were being used a lot, they decided to nerf them slightly, while buffing Librarians in response. This lead to the the very lopsided level of abilities between the two units, and all because they interpreted their personal preference for units as balance of the game.

Fast forward to the release of the WDW for the Imperial Knights, and Jervis Johnson has a very specific story about how they balanced the Imperial Knights. It basically amounted to them coming up with a rough value they think it should be from eye-balling, and then making a slight tweak depending on the attitudes of the studio guys, and letting loose the rules.

Coming up to the current time, it seems, at least with AOS and the proliferation of mega formations in 40k, that GW just doesn't care about balance at all. Which is *okay* in terms of AOS- we aren't paying any money, so the expectation on high quality doesn't necessarily correlate (it's a much bigger issue in 40k these days). However, it does still make people question purchasing a $50 box of Sigmarites if the game underneath is not well-built/supporting of variable experiences. Other companies like Corvus Beli seem to be able to handle free well-made rules with their miniatures. I applaud GW for making the rules to AOS free, but at the same time I completely understand that with no price comes much lesser quality. It's just a trade-off.

I also think that people need to remember that GW has already stated that they are a miniature making company first and the game builder second, this is ok with me (maybe not other users, but that is life) so they are more or less taking a step back from "play testing"... AoS simplicity means that a large enough group can find the "balance" they really want... active communities can easily create their own balance and rules that they feel are missing without having GW hold their hand :/

I would take Matt Ward back if that meant AoS would be ret conned.... Yea I would go that far.

Makumba wrote:

Spoiler:

(Reginald puts down what he thinks looks like an equal force.)
(Then they spend the next hour playing a game over a few pints and have a good time)

I have two questions about this way to play the game. First how does reggi know that the force are equal and what stops him from going for getting an edge and claiming the armies are balance? Second is , isn't alcohol intoxication kind of a limiting both players ability to judge how the game actualy was?

You missed part of the point. The point was how would one start playing a game without a points system. There was probably one of two ways it could have happened (there might me more, but I can't think of them now).
A] There was a 'Staff Meeting' where someone proposed the idea.
B] A happy 'Accident'.

1] How does he know that they were not? I have played enough Marine Armies that if two Random Marine Armies on the table I could probably tell you how balanced they were to each other or at least enough to know if both sides have a chance of winning.

2] You could easily replace 'Pint' with Mountain Dew, Coffee, Tea or whatever.

I have to admit I was firmly in the dislike camp mainly due to fluff reasons, and not being able to build and equip heroes the way I like just seemed so dull.

I've since played 2 games with my Skaven and I have to say it is a fun game. Very pick up and play and only having to refer to your own warscrolls to figure out how to use your units kept things moving quickly.

I agree that having no balancing mechanic makes it frustrating for me, as I like to at least feel like my army is on the same footing as my opponent, and it makes units like Clanrats and Slaves useless compared to better units like Stormvermin, outside of "well this is what I have so that is what I will use"

After some discussion with my opponent we settled on a total number of wounds, max 30 wounds per unit and basically no duplicate heroes as a rough guideline, and it worked out pretty well, game one I had 1 unit left on the board and he was tabled, game 2 was a bit more in my favor but then he lost 2 Mounfangs to dangerous woods, so that might have shifted things in my favor early on.

Many of the units however did finally get better, and overall I think they did a great job with the Skaven warscrolls. Finally, Rat Orgres are playable, and all of the weapon teams are worth taking!!! There really are not bad units in my army now, save the aforementioned Clan Rats and Slaves.

Yes, the totally open list building means that someone can be a jerk and take a broken list of summoners, all the best heroes/wizards/monster/warmachines etc, but really people were playing stupid broken lists in every edition of WHFB and it was just as frustrating to play against.

 More Dakka wrote:

Yes, the totally open list building means that someone can be a jerk and take a broken list of summoners, all the best heroes/wizards/monster/warmachines etc, but really people were playing stupid broken lists in every edition of WHFB and it was just as frustrating to play against.

Exactly. Nothing has changed. It's been the same no matter what edition or game (Fantasy or 40K).

Someone will always be a Richard if there is points or no points.

Davor wrote:

 More Dakka wrote:

Yes, the totally open list building means that someone can be a jerk and take a broken list of summoners, all the best heroes/wizards/monster/warmachines etc, but really people were playing stupid broken lists in every edition of WHFB and it was just as frustrating to play against.

Exactly. Nothing has changed. It's been the same no matter what edition or game (Fantasy or 40K).

Someone will always be a Richard if there is points or no points.

So instead of trying to fix a problem GW decided to scrap everything and tell us to figure it out?


I am really starting to resent this idea that has formed that game designers should be excused from doing their job because they decided it was hard.

 jonolikespie wrote:

Davor wrote:

 More Dakka wrote:

Yes, the totally open list building means that someone can be a jerk and take a broken list of summoners, all the best heroes/wizards/monster/warmachines etc, but really people were playing stupid broken lists in every edition of WHFB and it was just as frustrating to play against.

Exactly. Nothing has changed. It's been the same no matter what edition or game (Fantasy or 40K).

Someone will always be a Richard if there is points or no points.

So instead of trying to fix a problem GW decided to scrap everything and tell us to figure it out?


I am really starting to resent this idea that has formed that game designers should be excused from doing their job because they decided it was hard.

Not what I am saying at all. I am not absolving GW from doing their job at all. All I am saying is there will be a Richard no matter what.

For me, I think GW are idiots as a company. GW has their head so far up their arse they think they can do no wrong. They are where they are (Fantasy not selling) because of their business practices. No one is to blame but GW themselves. When you don't give people what you want and they don't buy you don't blame the customers. GW prices are just too expensive. Add in that there is no support for their product, they don't know how to write or EDIT and make a balanced rule set no wonder people stayed away from Fantasy.

While the minis are nice, GW still have not learnt their lesson. Or we are not GW customer base so it doesn't matter what we want and think and just want to sell to 1500 people around the world is their customer base and is content the way GW makes things.

For a company that doesn't know what they're doing they sure have been in business for awhile and it seems that you can grab a game almost anywhere you go.
Yeah, they're definitely idiots

The less rules there is the harder they are to write.

Personally there isn't much wrong with the rules and even the bits that have issues are easy fixed by talking with your opponent.

Its certainly easier to play this than the crapfest that was 8th

Well put moto