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.

Questions, what is GW playing if something like the IH rules was not a problem during 120 games?

or did just no one played IH because there was no painted studio army available at that time?

 nurgle5 wrote:

 DominayTrix wrote:
They mess up basic functional things and that's a playtesting issue at its core unless they stopped asking "does it work?" before they ask "does it work as intended?"

Maybe someone here knows something about this: are the play-testers just given the rules to play around with or do the 40k rules team also provide a designer's commentary explaining how the rules are "intended to work"? A lot of these problems seem to be caused by the intention of rules not being communicated properly through the way they're written. It seems likely (to me, anyway) that the play-testers could easily miss out an alternative ways of reading/interpreting rules if there's a design commentary influencing them to read those draft rules a certain way.

I could see that happening but in this case the rules causing the problem aren't vague. The super doctrine is the primary problem and there's no way to misinterpret things like "reroll 1s to hit" or "overwatch on 5s". I don't understand how anyone would even need play testing to understand that stacking all those special rules for free would be op.

Hopefully it has been delayed whilst they plan out how to tone down the IH.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Their own playtesters aren't incompetent by any stretch of the imagination.

They just aren't playing with ITC or other common 'tournament'(read: house) rules...and frankly, I've been thinking for awhile that the external playtesters are using this as a way to get a leg up for tournaments.

Do you have proof that Maelstrom or Eternal War is more balanced? I'm calling you out.

I dunno personally I felt like the "reroll a hit roll of 1 for heavy weapons" was intended to be A hit roll not all. But the problem is that GW already set a precedent by saying that a hit roll means all hit rolls.

I'm calling it now. It was supposed to be A hit roll but they messed it up because GW.

I thought that alone was way too powerful before any of the other shenanigans

 fraser1191 wrote:
I dunno personally I felt like the "reroll a hit roll of 1 for heavy weapons" was intended to be A hit roll not all. But the problem is that GW already set a precedent by saying that a hit roll means all hit rolls.

I'm calling it now. It was supposed to be A hit roll but they messed it up because GW.

I thought that alone was way too powerful before any of the other shenanigans

That's definitely wrong. GW has been pretty specific about updating their terminology in this way. (Also, the only other ability in the game I know of that allows for a single reroll on a result of 1 is a niche Forge World stratagem, so it's unlikely that's what they were going for.)

Waaaghpower wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
I dunno personally I felt like the "reroll a hit roll of 1 for heavy weapons" was intended to be A hit roll not all. But the problem is that GW already set a precedent by saying that a hit roll means all hit rolls.

I'm calling it now. It was supposed to be A hit roll but they messed it up because GW.

I thought that alone was way too powerful before any of the other shenanigans

That's definitely wrong. GW has been pretty specific about updating their terminology in this way. (Also, the only other ability in the game I know of that allows for a single reroll on a result of 1 is a niche Forge World stratagem, so it's unlikely that's what they were going for.)

there's also master Artisans that allows you to re-roll a single failed roll to hit and a single roll to wound.

After testing both IH and UM I've found that UMs are far stronger for maelstrom, while iron hands are stronger in an ITC setting. IH castles just aren't very flexible and in a format where objectives change every turn tactically flexible armies have the advantage. This is important since it seems to me that testing is done for maelstrom not the various competitive formats. I could see how this part alone would let the IH supplement get through testing as is. Not saying maelstrom is balanced or better also not saying IH isn't to strong in competitive formats. This could be slowing down FAQs since its a difficult problem to work through, "what do we (GW) balance for, the game as intended (maelstrom) or competitive formats (non GW rule sets)?". Just something to consider when asking why the FAQs are slow coming out, there is more to the problem than initially meets the eye.

Siege19 wrote:
After testing both IH and UM I've found that UMs are far stronger for maelstrom, while iron hands are stronger in an ITC setting. IH castles just aren't very flexible and in a format where objectives change every turn tactically flexible armies have the advantage. This is important since it seems to me that testing is done for maelstrom not the various competitive formats. I could see how this part alone would let the IH supplement get through testing as is. Not saying maelstrom is balanced or better also not saying IH isn't to strong in competitive formats. This could be slowing down FAQs since its a difficult problem to work through, "what do we (GW) balance for, the game as intended (maelstrom) or competitive formats (non GW rule sets)?". Just something to consider when asking why the FAQs are slow coming out, there is more to the problem than initially meets the eye.

Thats an easy question. GW should balance for their own ruleset. Not a fan made set they have no control over.

Ps. I heavily object to the notion you show that Maelstrom is not a competitive format.
You should check out the ETC missions.

 Ordana wrote:

Siege19 wrote:
After testing both IH and UM I've found that UMs are far stronger for maelstrom, while iron hands are stronger in an ITC setting. IH castles just aren't very flexible and in a format where objectives change every turn tactically flexible armies have the advantage. This is important since it seems to me that testing is done for maelstrom not the various competitive formats. I could see how this part alone would let the IH supplement get through testing as is. Not saying maelstrom is balanced or better also not saying IH isn't to strong in competitive formats. This could be slowing down FAQs since its a difficult problem to work through, "what do we (GW) balance for, the game as intended (maelstrom) or competitive formats (non GW rule sets)?". Just something to consider when asking why the FAQs are slow coming out, there is more to the problem than initially meets the eye.

Thats an easy question. GW should balance for their own ruleset. Not a fan made set they have no control over.

Ps. I heavily object to the notion you show that Maelstrom is not a competitive format.
You should check out the ETC missions.

I personally prefer maelstrom games, and agree with you that they should not cater to non official rules. However from a business perspective if you look at all the whining and delicious tears its hard not to take financial gains into consideration. Need to keep people playing and buying for their business model to continue functioning.

Malestrom is used at the Michigan GT and lots of local RTT's in my area. Although most other events are ITC champion missions.

BrianDavion wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
I dunno personally I felt like the "reroll a hit roll of 1 for heavy weapons" was intended to be A hit roll not all. But the problem is that GW already set a precedent by saying that a hit roll means all hit rolls.

I'm calling it now. It was supposed to be A hit roll but they messed it up because GW.

I thought that alone was way too powerful before any of the other shenanigans

That's definitely wrong. GW has been pretty specific about updating their terminology in this way. (Also, the only other ability in the game I know of that allows for a single reroll on a result of 1 is a niche Forge World stratagem, so it's unlikely that's what they were going for.)

there's also master Artisans that allows you to re-roll a single failed roll to hit and a single roll to wound.

But that's not a single failed hit/wound roll of 1. Rules that provide a single reroll exist, but outside of that forgeworld stratagem rules that provide a single reroll of a specific result don't exist to my knowledge.

Siege19 wrote:
After testing both IH and UM I've found that UMs are far stronger for maelstrom, while iron hands are stronger in an ITC setting. IH castles just aren't very flexible and in a format where objectives change every turn tactically flexible armies have the advantage. This is important since it seems to me that testing is done for maelstrom not the various competitive formats. I could see how this part alone would let the IH supplement get through testing as is. Not saying maelstrom is balanced or better also not saying IH isn't to strong in competitive formats. This could be slowing down FAQs since its a difficult problem to work through, "what do we (GW) balance for, the game as intended (maelstrom) or competitive formats (non GW rule sets)?". Just something to consider when asking why the FAQs are slow coming out, there is more to the problem than initially meets the eye.

IH can be mobile and they did win a Maelstrom event. Go win some tournaments with your UM or get good with IH.

Waaaghpower wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
I dunno personally I felt like the "reroll a hit roll of 1 for heavy weapons" was intended to be A hit roll not all. But the problem is that GW already set a precedent by saying that a hit roll means all hit rolls.

I'm calling it now. It was supposed to be A hit roll but they messed it up because GW.

I thought that alone was way too powerful before any of the other shenanigans

That's definitely wrong. GW has been pretty specific about updating their terminology in this way. (Also, the only other ability in the game I know of that allows for a single reroll on a result of 1 is a niche Forge World stratagem, so it's unlikely that's what they were going for.)

there's also master Artisans that allows you to re-roll a single failed roll to hit and a single roll to wound.

But that's not a single failed hit/wound roll of 1. Rules that provide a single reroll exist, but outside of that forgeworld stratagem rules that provide a single reroll of a specific result don't exist to my knowledge.

Scourged trait allowed 1 reroll for each unit.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Scourged trait allowed 1 reroll for each unit.

But it doesn't matter whether it's a 1 or a 2.

 vict0988 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Scourged trait allowed 1 reroll for each unit.

But it doesn't matter whether it's a 1 or a 2.

Aye, it also does not need to be a combat role.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Scourged trait allowed 1 reroll for each unit.

But it doesn't matter whether it's a 1 or a 2.

Aye, it also does not need to be a combat role.

It proves that the IH re-rolls were never meant to be just one roll per unit per turn, it wasn't an editorial error, it was a game balance mistake.

 Ordana wrote:

Siege19 wrote:
After testing both IH and UM I've found that UMs are far stronger for maelstrom, while iron hands are stronger in an ITC setting. IH castles just aren't very flexible and in a format where objectives change every turn tactically flexible armies have the advantage. This is important since it seems to me that testing is done for maelstrom not the various competitive formats. I could see how this part alone would let the IH supplement get through testing as is. Not saying maelstrom is balanced or better also not saying IH isn't to strong in competitive formats. This could be slowing down FAQs since its a difficult problem to work through, "what do we (GW) balance for, the game as intended (maelstrom) or competitive formats (non GW rule sets)?". Just something to consider when asking why the FAQs are slow coming out, there is more to the problem than initially meets the eye.

Thats an easy question. GW should balance for their own ruleset. Not a fan made set they have no control over.

Ps. I heavily object to the notion you show that Maelstrom is not a competitive format.
You should check out the ETC missions.

ETC? You mean a fan made rule set that GW has no control over?

 vict0988 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Scourged trait allowed 1 reroll for each unit.

But it doesn't matter whether it's a 1 or a 2.

Aye, it also does not need to be a combat role.

It proves that the IH re-rolls were never meant to be just one roll per unit per turn, it wasn't an editorial error, it was a game balance mistake.

Most likely, howver scourged also get 5+ overwatch.
I believe GW saw this and the lack off Scourged lists made them think that trait combination isn't good enough. (even though you can reroll any roll which is a lot more flexible)
However GW overlooked two htings imo, if that were the case: Mainly Scourged are renegades and therefore get no VotWL and Secondly they are mono mark Tzeentch. Meaning that cacophony is also not there.

So GW extrapulated and said that the trait itself is too weak and added to it.
Atleast that is what i see why this happened.

 vict0988 wrote:

Siege19 wrote:
After testing both IH and UM I've found that UMs are far stronger for maelstrom, while iron hands are stronger in an ITC setting. IH castles just aren't very flexible and in a format where objectives change every turn tactically flexible armies have the advantage. This is important since it seems to me that testing is done for maelstrom not the various competitive formats. I could see how this part alone would let the IH supplement get through testing as is. Not saying maelstrom is balanced or better also not saying IH isn't to strong in competitive formats. This could be slowing down FAQs since its a difficult problem to work through, "what do we (GW) balance for, the game as intended (maelstrom) or competitive formats (non GW rule sets)?". Just something to consider when asking why the FAQs are slow coming out, there is more to the problem than initially meets the eye.

IH can be mobile and they did win a Maelstrom event. Go win some tournaments with your UM or get good with IH.

lol, no need ultramarine's are winning events just fine on their own just take a look. Any army can be built in any way you like, will it be good though is the question. Highly mobile IH armies will have trouble staying within range of the ironstone, they are unlikely to have a chapter master making overwatch way less scary, leviathans the iron father and repulsors cant keep up with flyers. Just seems a highly mobile IH lists are forgoing a large amount of their "OP" components with the exception of the doctrine shenanigans. At that point I'd rather field any other SM faction to greater effect. But to each their own, you seem intent on being butt-hurt so enjoy.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Scourged trait allowed 1 reroll for each unit.

But it doesn't matter whether it's a 1 or a 2.

Aye, it also does not need to be a combat role.

It proves that the IH re-rolls were never meant to be just one roll per unit per turn, it wasn't an editorial error, it was a game balance mistake.

Most likely, howver scourged also get 5+ overwatch.
I believe GW saw this and the lack off Scourged lists made them think that trait combination isn't good enough. (even though you can reroll any roll which is a lot more flexible)
However GW overlooked two htings imo, if that were the case: Mainly Scourged are renegades and therefore get no VotWL and Secondly they are mono mark Tzeentch. Meaning that cacophony is also not there.

So GW extrapulated and said that the trait itself is too weak and added to it.
Atleast that is what i see why this happened.

I'm not saying that IH Chapter Tactic is the most insane thing ever, it's probably worse than successors currently and the only things keeping actual IH in the game is Feirros being severely undercosted. CSM don't get Combat Doctrines and don't get an extra Chapter Tactic while in a specific doctrine, that's the problem. GW could have tested and printed similar mono-faction rules for every faction (with a power level based on their current performance), instead SM are the only ones with this sort of ability and very few armies can keep up. Doctrines is what needs the most urgent nerf, I don't really care too much about the internal balance between SM chapters, because I don't believe they actually constitute different factions. If Dev Doctrine was once per game you could neuter their power by just staying out of LOS T1 and then you'd have a really good chance at beating IH. IH might still be the best chapter, but there is a best Craftworld, a best Dynasty and a best Sept, that wouldn't be anything new. IMO external balance between Marines and everything else is a bigger issue than IH, in particular, being OP. When Tau (a solid top half tier army with lots of top placings) has been absolutely removed from the meta it's clearly not balanced.

 Aenar wrote:
It's clear to me that IH are an example of playtesting gone wrong.
I don't assume malice when incompetence is enough, so I guess that the ones writing the final version of the rules misunderstood completely the playtesters' insight.
I only hope that they are taking their time to address this in a serious way rather than applying a band-aid temporary fix or kicking the can down the road.

It's sincerely unthinkable that the current version of IH rules could go unmodified until the spring 2020 big faq. That's six months from now.

Gotta jump in here to tell you how wrong you are

The very basic win/lose conditions are changed in ITC compared to the win/lose conditions presented in the 40k rules or chapter approved missions. Doesn't get more fundamental than tinkering with the things that decide who gets to win or lose a given game and how they get to win or lose a given game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kodos wrote:
Questions, what is GW playing if something like the IH rules was not a problem during 120 games?

or did just no one played IH because there was no painted studio army available at that time?

Just like the community instantly freaked out about triple Executioner Ironstone castles with Feirros and it took a tournament win to solidify the true threat, GW likely found that an immobile nigh unkillable fortress isn't very capable of winning CA missions.

 Ordana wrote:

Karol wrote:
I have a feeling that there is small chance that GW doesn't know what the goal of testing something suppose to be. Or they use the video games understanding of the worde, were companies put out games 6 or 12 months too soon, and expect that the stuff will somehow work itself out.

We know from interviews and such that in the past most of GW's testing was grabbing a bunch of units and throwing them on the table for a fun game.

They didn't (and I imagine still don't) actually try to break things while testing and it shows.

Which is not even good for a Narrative game, Its just lazy for a company of GWs size.

Siege19 wrote:
After testing both IH and UM I've found that UMs are far stronger for maelstrom, while iron hands are stronger in an ITC setting. IH castles just aren't very flexible and in a format where objectives change every turn tactically flexible armies have the advantage. This is important since it seems to me that testing is done for maelstrom not the various competitive formats. I could see how this part alone would let the IH supplement get through testing as is. Not saying maelstrom is balanced or better also not saying IH isn't to strong in competitive formats. This could be slowing down FAQs since its a difficult problem to work through, "what do we (GW) balance for, the game as intended (maelstrom) or competitive formats (non GW rule sets)?". Just something to consider when asking why the FAQs are slow coming out, there is more to the problem than initially meets the eye.

Ummm IH's move and shoot without worry and one of their big things is the flyers. What UM has over IH then? Not mobility at least.

Lemondish wrote:

 Aenar wrote:
It's clear to me that IH are an example of playtesting gone wrong.
I don't assume malice when incompetence is enough, so I guess that the ones writing the final version of the rules misunderstood completely the playtesters' insight.
I only hope that they are taking their time to address this in a serious way rather than applying a band-aid temporary fix or kicking the can down the road.

It's sincerely unthinkable that the current version of IH rules could go unmodified until the spring 2020 big faq. That's six months from now.

Gotta jump in here to tell you how wrong you are

The very basic win/lose conditions are changed in ITC compared to the win/lose conditions presented in the 40k rules or chapter approved missions. Doesn't get more fundamental than tinkering with the things that decide who gets to win or lose a given game and how they get to win or lose a given game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kodos wrote:
Questions, what is GW playing if something like the IH rules was not a problem during 120 games?

or did just no one played IH because there was no painted studio army available at that time?

Just like the community instantly freaked out about triple Executioner Ironstone castles with Feirros and it took a tournament win to solidify the true threat, GW likely found that an immobile nigh unkillable fortress isn't very capable of winning CA missions.

IH are stupidly OP in every mission, are you all playtesters that are trying to keep your jobs? You've been proven wrong by IH win at a Maelstrom event. It's funny that you say that since IH successors are pretty damn mobile and mobile IH had better performance than gunline IH in ITC, maybe you just don't know anything about the ITC meta?

tneva82 wrote:

Siege19 wrote:
After testing both IH and UM I've found that UMs are far stronger for maelstrom, while iron hands are stronger in an ITC setting. IH castles just aren't very flexible and in a format where objectives change every turn tactically flexible armies have the advantage. This is important since it seems to me that testing is done for maelstrom not the various competitive formats. I could see how this part alone would let the IH supplement get through testing as is. Not saying maelstrom is balanced or better also not saying IH isn't to strong in competitive formats. This could be slowing down FAQs since its a difficult problem to work through, "what do we (GW) balance for, the game as intended (maelstrom) or competitive formats (non GW rule sets)?". Just something to consider when asking why the FAQs are slow coming out, there is more to the problem than initially meets the eye.

Ummm IH's move and shoot without worry and one of their big things is the flyers. What UM has over IH then? Not mobility at least.

Yes mobility. in the tactical doctrine (which ultramarines will basicly live in) Ultramarines treat all units as if they had been stationary. so not only do their tanks not suffer the -1 to hit for having moved, but an executioner tank may fire twice even if it's moved full speed. Aggressors are always firing twice, and Marines can move and double tap their bolters.
this is straight up better then "ignores the -1 to move"

And they can fall back and fire, which in that kind of scenario is quite relevant.

Another point to consider is that GW standard format is 1750, and those 250 points less impact a lot the viability of any kind of deathstar.

In IH terms, those 250 points less are one less executioner in the lot or not getting to fill a second battalion.

In any case the parking lot at 1750 tends to be really light on troops, so you just focus on those and win.

There is only one mission that you can win with a huge death blob like that, but guess what, it negates invul saves.

 Ghaz wrote:
A little insight into GW's playtesting from their Facebook page:

Warhammer 40,000 wrote:So, we have an internal rules team and around 20 playtesters. Lets say, they all play 3 games a week with a new Codex. That's around 40 games being played a week. So, perhaps 100-120 games get played in the playtest period. They catch LOADs of things that need tweaking, and discuss points values, how rules work together, the way they interact with various enemies etc.

Release day rolls round. We sell (picking a number out of the air) 50,000 copies of Codex: Orks. That means 50,000 games being played on day one. Maybe another 50,000 games being played day 2.

In 2 days, the community has played 100,000 games or more, against every possible enemy, and every possible scenario. They spot a few things our playtesters didn't (it's a vast and complex game after all!) and pass it on to us at 40kfaq@gwplc.com.

Our rules writers, eager to make sure everyone's gaming experience is as good as it can be, take those questions and produce these FAQ documents.

For our rules team and playtesters to get through 100,000 games, they would need to play 3 games a week for almost 5 years. We reckoned you guys didn't want to wait that long, you see!

So some seemingly obvious things slip through. Is it due to incompetence, lack of due diligence, work load or some other reason? I do not know.

So is that to mean that 3 games a week is really all they can stomach of the game they play test ? As well I call total BS on some of that PR hot air. Some of these things, on their face just scream OP and they did from game 1. I'm talking core rules and not just the marines supplements. Maybe they should find the time to play like a game a day for the week ? That I think might help a little bit.

AngryAngel80 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
A little insight into GW's playtesting from their Facebook page:

Warhammer 40,000 wrote:So, we have an internal rules team and around 20 playtesters. Lets say, they all play 3 games a week with a new Codex. That's around 40 games being played a week. So, perhaps 100-120 games get played in the playtest period. They catch LOADs of things that need tweaking, and discuss points values, how rules work together, the way they interact with various enemies etc.

Release day rolls round. We sell (picking a number out of the air) 50,000 copies of Codex: Orks. That means 50,000 games being played on day one. Maybe another 50,000 games being played day 2.

In 2 days, the community has played 100,000 games or more, against every possible enemy, and every possible scenario. They spot a few things our playtesters didn't (it's a vast and complex game after all!) and pass it on to us at 40kfaq@gwplc.com.

Our rules writers, eager to make sure everyone's gaming experience is as good as it can be, take those questions and produce these FAQ documents.

For our rules team and playtesters to get through 100,000 games, they would need to play 3 games a week for almost 5 years. We reckoned you guys didn't want to wait that long, you see!

So some seemingly obvious things slip through. Is it due to incompetence, lack of due diligence, work load or some other reason? I do not know.

So is that to mean that 3 games a week is really all they can stomach of the game they play test ? As well I call total BS on some of that PR hot air. Some of these things, on their face just scream OP and they did from game 1. I'm talking core rules and not just the marines supplements. Maybe they should find the time to play like a game a day for the week ? That I think might help a little bit.

Well 20 people each using the new codex 3 times a week is 60, so not sure how they got 40 there. But that post is in response to new books, specifically the most recent release.

Bear in mind those 20 playtesters will work across all gw games probably and need to also regression test the older factiona for balance ch ages or new rule adjustments ala chapter approved. I agree 40 a week with the new product is fairly low for what you imagine, but when the reality of normal working hours and other factors like other games come into it, that's a decent effort.

I'd take that GW post with a giant pinch of salt.

As someone else mentioned, playtesting is absolutely pointless if a unit is clearly broken on paper or points costs are totally out of whack. No amount of tabletop time can fix those core issues.