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.

 chimeara wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 chimeara wrote:
Then what do the guys at my LGS do on Wednesdays? Why do they get advance copies of rules to test? Why do they get trips to GW Headquarters? I'm confused, if they're not playtesters. Then what are they?

do they have full rules of 9th with updated faction rules?
if yes, they are play testers
if no, they are not (could call them Alpha Testers or Concept Testers, but not play testers as therefore you need a finished game to test)

That's a valid point. That's hard for me to answer, since I'm not even supposed to know what I know. Based on the kernals of knowledge I have on the situation, I'd days beta testers.

No it's not. Play testers don't test finished games. They test everything and anything to provide feedback, bug reports, and whatever else the developers want testing for. Play testers can test alpha builds, individual mechanics, concepts, whatever. This weird ass distinction kodos is making in a title is bizarre at best and meaningless pretty much all the time.

 Lance845 wrote:
Play testers don't test finished games. They test everything and anything to provide feedback, bug reports, and whatever else the developers want testing for. Play testers can test alpha builds, individual mechanics, concepts, whatever. This weird ass distinction kodos is making in a title is bizarre at best and meaningless pretty much all the time.

Than it is more of a language thing, as you won't call someone who is just testing individual mechanics, concepts or an Alpha build a Play Tester (but those who test the final product)

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
GW has proven and Reece has confirmed they don;t actually have playtesters....

Yeah, but given his statements on how strong the original 8th ed Grey Knights were going to be, let alone the Stompa, Reece has proven to have all the reliability of a chocolate fireguard infront of an active blast furnace...

 kodos wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Play testers don't test finished games. They test everything and anything to provide feedback, bug reports, and whatever else the developers want testing for. Play testers can test alpha builds, individual mechanics, concepts, whatever. This weird ass distinction kodos is making in a title is bizarre at best and meaningless pretty much all the time.

Than it is more of a language thing, as you won't call someone who is just testing individual mechanics, concepts or an Alpha build a Play Tester (but those who test the final product)

Why not? The purpose of a play tester is to test the game in whatever capacity that means. A finished game no longer needs to be tested. It's being sent to the printers. Their job is done. Play Testers are often given builds with instructions to test specific criteria.

"In this build we introduced a new psychic power system. Test in matches at 500-1000-1500-2000 points with a minimum of 1-2-3-4 psykers in the army and report on imbalances, loop holes, and general feedback on the core mechanics of the psychic phase. Don't worry about balance of powers. They are not finalized."


Everyone who plays that build is a play tester.

 Lance845 wrote:

Why not?

Kind of because the separation between Alpha Testers, Beta Testers and Play Tester is stronger and you search for different people for each task
an Alpha Tester need to find different problems than a Beta Tester than a Play Tester and usually the Alpha group is the smallest group selected on experience while Play Testers can or sometimes should be people who are not familiar with the game at all.

"In this build we introduced a new psychic power system. Test in matches at 500-1000-1500-2000 points with a minimum of 1-2-3-4 psykers in the army and report on imbalances, loop holes, and general feedback on the core mechanics of the psychic phase. Don't worry about balance of powers. They are not finalized."

Depending on if this are the only changes, or if is one of several systems that are teste, you would call it Alpha or Beta Testers

It would be uncommon that someone searching for Play Testers want people to test the Alpha built or a general concept, they would search for Alpha Testers and people would know what to expect from the game.

 chimeara wrote:
I've got it on good authority that playtesters are working on "9th". I say that in quotes because we're supposed to be in a living rules set edition. Also keep in mind, they work a year or more in advance.

Well, even if they change the entire content of the battle primer, that's less rules changed than CA or Codex: Space Marines. If they just apply some changes to the areas that aren't working well, this might very well still be in the confines of a living ruleset.

If they do a new release, all I can say is I hope it comes with an app for live rules updates and coupled with a list builder. That and rewarding and re-roll ability from “hits” to “a hit” etc. The re-roll meta needs to shuffle off.

 chimeara wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 chimeara wrote:
Then what do the guys at my LGS do on Wednesdays? Why do they get advance copies of rules to test? Why do they get trips to GW Headquarters? I'm confused, if they're not playtesters. Then what are they?

do they have full rules of 9th with updated faction rules?
if yes, they are play testers
if no, they are not (could call them Alpha Testers or Concept Testers, but not play testers as therefore you need a finished game to test)

That's a valid point. That's hard for me to answer, since I'm not even supposed to know what I know. Based on the kernals of knowledge I have on the situation, I'd days beta testers.

Well you just got them fired. If GW has playtesters or beta testers or whatever you want to call them, they don't have verymany of them, definitely not in Ohio (the only people I know of who get to experience development builds of GW rulesets are all in the UK) and it sounds like you just let slip that they're in violation of their NDA.

just stop. "I met some guys who claimed they were testing 9th"

"I know more than I should"

"I a 11Beta xRay Delta Force Combat knife thrower and took out bin Laden"

Your claims to be in the know (Wink) are all very extraordinary, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Hitchens

We can even do it too!

"I was talking to a guy in my hobby store that told me in 9th Niids will be given an extra psychic phase and Space Marines only get 4 dhotd from Storm Bolters. Iron hands now get plus 1 to damag in melee. He was super in the know, and told me he was on the writing team. I told him his writers all suck and need to be fired.

 kodos wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Why not?

Kind of because the separation between Alpha Testers, Beta Testers and Play Tester is stronger and you search for different people for each task
an Alpha Tester need to find different problems than a Beta Tester than a Play Tester and usually the Alpha group is the smallest group selected on experience while Play Testers can or sometimes should be people who are not familiar with the game at all.

"In this build we introduced a new psychic power system. Test in matches at 500-1000-1500-2000 points with a minimum of 1-2-3-4 psykers in the army and report on imbalances, loop holes, and general feedback on the core mechanics of the psychic phase. Don't worry about balance of powers. They are not finalized."

Depending on if this are the only changes, or if is one of several systems that are teste, you would call it Alpha or Beta Testers

It would be uncommon that someone searching for Play Testers want people to test the Alpha built or a general concept, they would search for Alpha Testers and people would know what to expect from the game.

I'm not sure where you're getting your super-specific terminology from, but it isn't universal.

I'm not sure if "I do playtesting" is damning enough to violate an NDA.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I'm not sure if "I do playtesting" is damning enough to violate an NDA.

depends, reporting that GW is actively testing a new edition may well be.

 Dysartes wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
GW has proven and Reece has confirmed they don;t actually have playtesters....

Yeah, but given his statements on how strong the original 8th ed Grey Knights were going to be, let alone the Stompa, Reece has proven to have all the reliability of a chocolate fireguard infront of an active blast furnace...

Anything Reece or FLG has to say should never be taken with more than a grain of salt.

BrianDavion wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I'm not sure if "I do playtesting" is damning enough to violate an NDA.

depends, reporting that GW is actively testing a new edition may well be.

If GW were truly publishing a new edition this Summer, especially with a big box of miniatures as well as the rulebook, which have a lead time of 1-2 years as seen from the Soul Wars box, the box / book went to print long before the Marines Codex hit the shelves and any playtesting would‘ve been done during the days of Castellans and Ynnari at the very least.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I'm not sure if "I do playtesting" is damning enough to violate an NDA.

depends, reporting that GW is actively testing a new edition may well be.

If GW were truly publishing a new edition this Summer, especially with a big box of miniatures as well as the rulebook, which have a lead time of 1-2 years as seen from the Soul Wars box, the box / book went to print long before the Marines Codex hit the shelves and any playtesting would‘ve been done during the days of Castellans and Ynnari at the very least.

right so if people are testing ideas for a 9ith edition NOW....

we're proably looking at another year or 2 (maybe even 3) of 8th edition. which by about then we'll be ready for 9th

BrianDavion wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I'm not sure if "I do playtesting" is damning enough to violate an NDA.

depends, reporting that GW is actively testing a new edition may well be.

If GW were truly publishing a new edition this Summer, especially with a big box of miniatures as well as the rulebook, which have a lead time of 1-2 years as seen from the Soul Wars box, the box / book went to print long before the Marines Codex hit the shelves and any playtesting would‘ve been done during the days of Castellans and Ynnari at the very least.

right so if people are testing ideas for a 9ith edition NOW....

we're proably looking at another year or 2 (maybe even 3) of 8th edition. which by about then we'll be ready for 9th

Yes because by then the collection of books required to play a csm army will resemble the Encyclopedia Britanica.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I'm not sure if "I do playtesting" is damning enough to violate an NDA.

depends, reporting that GW is actively testing a new edition may well be.

If GW were truly publishing a new edition this Summer, especially with a big box of miniatures as well as the rulebook, which have a lead time of 1-2 years as seen from the Soul Wars box, the box / book went to print long before the Marines Codex hit the shelves and any playtesting would‘ve been done during the days of Castellans and Ynnari at the very least.

right so if people are testing ideas for a 9ith edition NOW....

we're proably looking at another year or 2 (maybe even 3) of 8th edition. which by about then we'll be ready for 9th

Yes because by then the collection of books required to play a csm army will resemble the Encyclopedia Britanica.

pfft! I play black legion, I only need 2!

BrianDavion wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I'm not sure if "I do playtesting" is damning enough to violate an NDA.

depends, reporting that GW is actively testing a new edition may well be.

If GW were truly publishing a new edition this Summer, especially with a big box of miniatures as well as the rulebook, which have a lead time of 1-2 years as seen from the Soul Wars box, the box / book went to print long before the Marines Codex hit the shelves and any playtesting would‘ve been done during the days of Castellans and Ynnari at the very least.

right so if people are testing ideas for a 9ith edition NOW....

we're proably looking at another year or 2 (maybe even 3) of 8th edition. which by about then we'll be ready for 9th

Yes because by then the collection of books required to play a csm army will resemble the Encyclopedia Britanica.

pfft! I play black legion, I only need 2!

*Yawn* Ultramarines with spikes. REAL traitors Ride the Lightning.

My horror scenario is GW trying to cash in on a new psychic abilities systen.
"psychic awakening" and the rules it provide has suspiciously little to do with psychic powers.
Suppose they still want all these rules to be used in 9th but has a new fancy magic setup with loads of cards and spellmarkers and "endless spells" for every faction.
If they do magic dice pool again I will set fire to my armies on you tube.

 Fayric wrote:
My horror scenario is GW trying to cash in on a new psychic abilities systen.
"psychic awakening" and the rules it provide has suspiciously little to do with psychic powers.
Suppose they still want all these rules to be used in 9th but has a new fancy magic setup with loads of cards and spellmarkers and "endless spells" for every faction.
If they do magic dice pool again I will set fire to my armies on you tube.

Please don't.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Fayric wrote:
My horror scenario is GW trying to cash in on a new psychic abilities systen.
"psychic awakening" and the rules it provide has suspiciously little to do with psychic powers.
Suppose they still want all these rules to be used in 9th but has a new fancy magic setup with loads of cards and spellmarkers and "endless spells" for every faction.
If they do magic dice pool again I will set fire to my armies on you tube.

Please don't.

Or if you do please make sure to do so in a well-ventilated and nonflammable area. Spite and bile are all well and good but do pay attention to fire safety.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Fayric wrote:
My horror scenario is GW trying to cash in on a new psychic abilities systen.
"psychic awakening" and the rules it provide has suspiciously little to do with psychic powers.
Suppose they still want all these rules to be used in 9th but has a new fancy magic setup with loads of cards and spellmarkers and "endless spells" for every faction.
If they do magic dice pool again I will set fire to my armies on you tube.

Please don't.

Yeah, sorry, forgot to put up some laughing and winking orks to show you I was just fooling around.

Do not fool me again swede it i Set over and personally Make sure that thou Shall not Burn plastic

An Actual Englishman wrote:Lol I don't think GW call the current edition 8th do they? Isn't that what we call it? They call it 'the ultimate 40k edition' or some gak.

kodos wrote:GW stopped naming Editions long time ago.
We have Rogue Trader, 2nd Edition, 3rd Edition and since than it is just 40.000

with 4th/5th/6th can be just kept apart by the Copyright date (2004/2008/2012) while nothing else indicates which one is older

with 7th, it was named Warhammer 40.000 The Rules

People just name the different Editions to keep them apart, GW never has done that at all

Sure I've heard on the offical podcasts people refer to the different editions including calling the current one 8th, so it might not have the edition printed in the rule book or on the website, but GW use those terms internally I'm sure

 Shooter wrote:

An Actual Englishman wrote:Lol I don't think GW call the current edition 8th do they? Isn't that what we call it? They call it 'the ultimate 40k edition' or some gak.

kodos wrote:GW stopped naming Editions long time ago.
We have Rogue Trader, 2nd Edition, 3rd Edition and since than it is just 40.000

with 4th/5th/6th can be just kept apart by the Copyright date (2004/2008/2012) while nothing else indicates which one is older

with 7th, it was named Warhammer 40.000 The Rules

People just name the different Editions to keep them apart, GW never has done that at all

Sure I've heard on the offical podcasts people refer to the different editions including calling the current one 8th, so it might not have the edition printed in the rule book or on the website, but GW use those terms internally I'm sure

GW as a company never officially refer to an edition by it's number, it's just the "Curent Edition". That doesn't stop individuals from doing so though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kodos wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Why not?

Kind of because the separation between Alpha Testers, Beta Testers and Play Tester is stronger and you search for different people for each task
an Alpha Tester need to find different problems than a Beta Tester than a Play Tester and usually the Alpha group is the smallest group selected on experience while Play Testers can or sometimes should be people who are not familiar with the game at all.

"In this build we introduced a new psychic power system. Test in matches at 500-1000-1500-2000 points with a minimum of 1-2-3-4 psykers in the army and report on imbalances, loop holes, and general feedback on the core mechanics of the psychic phase. Don't worry about balance of powers. They are not finalized."

Depending on if this are the only changes, or if is one of several systems that are teste, you would call it Alpha or Beta Testers

It would be uncommon that someone searching for Play Testers want people to test the Alpha built or a general concept, they would search for Alpha Testers and people would know what to expect from the game.

You do know this isn't a computer game right? All these terms that have specific meaning for developing computer games are meaningless for a table top game.

 Imateria wrote:
You do know this isn't a computer game right? All these terms that have specific meaning for developing computer games are meaningless for a table top game.

The actual mistake is to assume that a tabletop game is anything but a very simple computer game.

 Imateria wrote:

You do know this isn't a computer game right? All these terms that have specific meaning for developing computer games are meaningless for a table top game.

It is the same for boardgames
but I don't know how heavy the influence of old PC programming terms is for current boardgame or tabletop designers

Alpha/beta/ etc builds is just a naming convention to organize the structure of implemental phases of developement. Anythings first pass is its alpha even if you call it something else. Testers are testers regardless of what they are testing. Maybe they only get hired on for a "alpha phase" and so their official job title is "alpha tester" but they are just play testing a build regardless.

 Lance845 wrote:
Alpha/beta/ etc builds is just a naming convention to organize the structure of implemental phases of developement. Anythings first pass is its alpha even if you call it something else. Testers are testers regardless of what they are testing. Maybe they only get hired on for a "alpha phase" and so their official job title is "alpha tester" but they are just play testing a build regardless.

Hum, not really. During the alpha stage of a game, concepts aren't finished yet, the game usually is not fully playable and lots of stuff is just patchwork. During the beta stage there should be a finished game that is checked for flaws.

In general, the kind of people you need for alpha testing should be closer connected to the design process and need to provide much more technical and detailed feedback.

It's fairly safe to assume that any alpha testing for 40k is done by the studio itself, while beta-testing is done by the ITC guys and others, who play with already finished codices and rules and try to find rule and balance issues.

You are just arguing semantics based around "usually"s and "probably"s. You can call any build by any name and it means the same thing. What qualifies a person for build x is based on what you want out of your tests for build x.