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.

It's been two weeks since release and within literally minutes people were finding typos, copy paste errors and nonsensical rules and broken RaW.

Not to mention that having even one playtester would make this claim true.

I guess since they forgot to hire editors they could hire more than one playtester?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Not to mention that having even one playtester would make this claim true.

You don't even agree that the claim is incorrect

Rules for 8th seem pretty solid. Yes, some FAQ is needed on some ambiguous rules/wording, but it's pretty small. Yeah, some things do seem strong, but it's very early days yet.

Forge World rules however are a complete travesty and an embarrassment. It's usually GW rules that are stupid, but Forge World really outdid themselves.

Of all the games at my FLGS, 100% of people agree it's a much better rule set than 7th. With around 40ish battles played between around 20-25 players, that seems pretty good in my book.

No, I'd say that this is pretty normal for Forgeworld. Rules that don't function, typos, all business as usual.

Have you ever tried to play Zone Mortalis? It's lots of fun but there are so many rules that are contradictory, rules that don't work, stratagems that are blatantly superior to all of the others, etc.

The Play Testers are restricted by their NDAs. It is possible for this to be the most play tested edition and for you to hate it.

I hope you find a game you like.

I think they did a pretty good job overall. There are a few issues, but they are ones that can be FAQed and things will run smoothly.

For something that has to have been "playtested" so "thoroughly" and for a lot of threads asking about FAQs and what not, I am really finding it hard to believe and the 2 people who we were suppose to believe could have lied to us about how much play testing was done I am sure this is GW being of old.

From what I heard from previous playtesters from previous editions, I am sure the 2 people who we are suppose to believe in, have pointed out all these mistakes and rules ambiguity to GW, but GW being GW of old ignored them and in most cases said "you are wrong, we are right" and never fixed what was pointed out to them.

So I will say yes this is the most "Playtested" edition, but GW is all smoke and mirrors and in their minds they can do no wrong and just don't listen to the play testers and threaten them if they keep saying otherwise.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It's been two weeks since release and within literally minutes people were finding typos, copy paste errors and nonsensical rules and broken RaW.

>typos, copy paste errors
absolutely nothing to do with playtesting, and everything to do with proofreading.

TBQH, this is probably the most playtested edition.

This doesn't mean that the game is perfect and perfectly balanced, but it does mean that GW are getting closer. If you're looking for a perfect game, well, come back in a few thousand years.

@OP see if you can get something trending on social media. The #3yearsoftesting to PP got their arses in gear and lead to the creation of CiD.

See how much you can push GW on it.

 Kouzuki wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It's been two weeks since release and within literally minutes people were finding typos, copy paste errors and nonsensical rules and broken RaW.

>typos, copy paste errors
absolutely nothing to do with playtesting, and everything to do with proofreading.

The typos, sure. But you can't blame nonsensical rules and broken RAW on proofreading alone. It's exactly the sort of thing that should have been identified and corrected during playtesting.

Are we talking about FW or the normal index's

Because being surprised that FW rules seemingly look like a child wrote them in crayon is not new... it's just not got the same team behind it proofreading and testing.

Overall though the testing seems to have pretty clearly done, the core stuff works well outside of maybe half a dozen units with points costs that don't reflect reality of the unit in use

It probably is the "most play tested edition" because they actually had play testers. Every other edition of 40k is generally written by a single author and a few games played by the boys in the office.

This time around they brought in community leaders and activley engaged in how to balance the game.

It doesn't mean it's the best version, or the most balanced, or wahtever. But I think it probably is truthful that they spent the most time of any edition actually play testing the system.

Well... most play tested edition isn't as high a bar as you seem to imply. It was better playtested than the last 2-3. It's a long way from perfect but hey, improvement is improvement.

Also, it's worth noting that "most play-tested" doesn't have any impact on how the rules are written/worded/typed/produced etc. All of the play-testing stuff would have just been a massive piles of notes...which could then be poorly translated by writers etc.

This, to me, is probably the most difficult part of writing a rule set. You know, in your head, how it all works. Putting it on paper for someone to read and comprehend is tough, really tough. I agree that a lot of the printed material is poor by technical editing standards, but that doesn't have anything to do with being play-tested.

 vipoid wrote:

 Kouzuki wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It's been two weeks since release and within literally minutes people were finding typos, copy paste errors and nonsensical rules and broken RaW.

>typos, copy paste errors
absolutely nothing to do with playtesting, and everything to do with proofreading.

The typos, sure. But you can't blame nonsensical rules and broken RAW on proofreading alone. It's exactly the sort of thing that should have been identified and corrected during playtesting.

As someone who has playtested several other games, broken RAW is hard to catch during playtesting - playtest copies, in my experience, often have non-final versions of the wording and run largely on RAI.

 Kingsley wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Kouzuki wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It's been two weeks since release and within literally minutes people were finding typos, copy paste errors and nonsensical rules and broken RaW.

>typos, copy paste errors
absolutely nothing to do with playtesting, and everything to do with proofreading.

The typos, sure. But you can't blame nonsensical rules and broken RAW on proofreading alone. It's exactly the sort of thing that should have been identified and corrected during playtesting.

As someone who has playtested several other games, broken RAW is hard to catch during playtesting - playtest copies, in my experience, often have non-final versions of the wording and run largely on RAI.

I dunno, the moment you glance over the rules, you can find interpretations quite quickly. Look at how easily <Sept><Craftworld><Wu Tang Clan>> escalated to a day 1 errata. Likewise, I seriously doubt nobody asked "wait, I can't hit an aircraft with this flamethrower that automatically hits...right?"

This IS the most playtested edition of 40k. Keep in mind that to become one you only needed at least a single game to be played. Cause previous editions have had zero.

 buddha wrote:
It probably is the "most play tested edition" because they actually had play testers. Every other edition of 40k is generally written by a single author and a few games played by the boys in the office.

That's only been true sine 4th ed. They used to do a LOT of playtesting in 2nd and 3rd, including several out of studio independent playtesting groups.

Leaks coming from those groups are actually how we used to learn about what was coming up and was also why GW quit using them past 3rd.

Yawn

If you read some of the early faq questions, i actually sympathize with gw..the stupidity of some of the people they have to cater to is astounding

It's a misunderstanding -- they playtested the gak out of it, doesn't mean they implemented changes based on feedback.


Hell, I file bugs all day long - only a handful ever see any meaningful change.

Not impressed with it. Sure, I agree, 7th is a craphole and I had walked away from it. In no way does that make me feel like rising up as a defender of GeeDubs just cuz 8th, in its homogenity, is easier to run for entry level players. I'm glad that atm there isn't any auto losing armies like there is in 7th but I see, yet again from GeeDubs, another rush job to placate the deadlines of their shareholders resulting in a poorly designed game. Being "the most play tested" edition was a very low bar to meet and of course it's easily met and claimed as such. Good on them, I suppose, they got to occupy their time for a bit. But I'm not impressed. I'll still continue putting the game as a low priority as I've done in the past while working on my art. Too many mistakes and poorly written design to spend anything on the current books snd indexes since the only way to fix it would be for codices, erratas, and faq''s to invalidate what they currently wrote. It's poor form but just like a box of Kellogs garbage candy soup it'll find its consumers to gobble it up. I'm keeping an eye on model prices and even have any more purchases on hold in case prices rocket beyond good taset. If it does then I'm bailing from the art aspect as this was just yet another medium for me to work with. Going back to oil painting on canvas is no biggie for me.

So much easier to understand, so much less cheesey then 7 th. What's not to like 4 weeks into the honeymoon? They will iron some of the discrepancies out sooner or later, but none of it is game breaking.

 Kingsley wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Kouzuki wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It's been two weeks since release and within literally minutes people were finding typos, copy paste errors and nonsensical rules and broken RaW.

>typos, copy paste errors
absolutely nothing to do with playtesting, and everything to do with proofreading.

The typos, sure. But you can't blame nonsensical rules and broken RAW on proofreading alone. It's exactly the sort of thing that should have been identified and corrected during playtesting.

As someone who has playtested several other games, broken RAW is hard to catch during playtesting - playtest copies, in my experience, often have non-final versions of the wording and run largely on RAI.

I'll second this, I've play tested things before, we got MS word documents.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Kouzuki wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It's been two weeks since release and within literally minutes people were finding typos, copy paste errors and nonsensical rules and broken RaW.

>typos, copy paste errors
absolutely nothing to do with playtesting, and everything to do with proofreading.

The typos, sure. But you can't blame nonsensical rules and broken RAW on proofreading alone. It's exactly the sort of thing that should have been identified and corrected during playtesting.

As someone who has playtested several other games, broken RAW is hard to catch during playtesting - playtest copies, in my experience, often have non-final versions of the wording and run largely on RAI.

I dunno, the moment you glance over the rules, you can find interpretations quite quickly. Look at how easily <Sept><Craftworld><Wu Tang Clan>> escalated to a day 1 errata. Likewise, I seriously doubt nobody asked "wait, I can't hit an aircraft with this flamethrower that automatically hits...right?"

Honestly, no. It was clearly obvious how the keywords words and we had obtuse people coming in doing their thing.

I think the game is pretty damn playtested. Well, maybe not forgeworld... but the rest of it? Yeah definitely.

Terrible balance can actually be the result of excessive testing

Test settings are often incredibly small samples that might result in large changes based on extremely vocal opinions.

If one of the testers have a bias against something, it might reflect strongly in any changes made.

This is completely ignoring the potential of the 'financial' department weighing in on how balance should be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kouzuki wrote:
>typos, copy paste errors
absolutely nothing to do with playtesting, and everything to do with proofreading.

I mean, it has a little to do with playtesting.
We assume the playtesters read the rules they were playtesting, right?

Are you telling me half a dozen testers read it and no one noticed the mistake?

 Talamare wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kouzuki wrote:
>typos, copy paste errors
absolutely nothing to do with playtesting, and everything to do with proofreading.

I mean, it has a little to do with playtesting.
We assume the playtesters read the rules they were playtesting, right?

Are you telling me half a dozen testers read it and no one noticed the mistake?

No, you're being told that those testers probably didn't actually see that specific text. They potentially saw an earlier version that hadn't been finalized yet.

I'm mostly grumpy they doubled down on the nonsensical modifiers and rerolls issue. It seems so contrary to their core assertions about this edition. And could be simply fixed by just indicating natural rolls of 1 are what are rerolled to prevent shenanigans with modifiers and rerolling 1s. They didn'tneed to infect other rerolls (and poor plasma guns) with the same nonsense. Especially poor plasma guns.

 Talamare wrote:
Terrible balance can actually be the result of excessive testing

Test settings are often incredibly small samples that might result in large changes based on extremely vocal opinions.

If one of the testers have a bias against something, it might reflect strongly in any changes made.

This is completely ignoring the potential of the 'financial' department weighing in on how balance should be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kouzuki wrote:
>typos, copy paste errors
absolutely nothing to do with playtesting, and everything to do with proofreading.

I mean, it has a little to do with playtesting.
We assume the playtesters read the rules they were playtesting, right?

Are you telling me half a dozen testers read it and no one noticed the mistake?

we're saying that they likly didn't get the typo in their rules. Typos are EDITING mistakes, not play testing.