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.
Now who do you want even doing the play testing? Average John Doe who has a basic understanding of the rules or the top 40k players around that consistently win tournaments? That is going to have a huge impact on your findings as well.
Neither. Both are bad. I want people with jobs being testers to do testing.
You're going to be disappointed then. No tabletop company professional testers, it's just not cost effective in any way shape or form.
I am not disappointed because I know GW sucks.
That being said, it is cost effective. GW has massive profit margins and a break neck release schedule. That release schedule would be more profitable in the long run if the products were all more reliable in the long run.
WotC, FFG, several other TT companies also have the release schedules to justify professional Beta testers, none of them do though. It's not financially sensible for them to do so, whatever their current profit margin is or isn't.
You say that but I doubt it. Yes, they run "open' and "closed" beta tests with volunteers because volunteers from their communities are plentiful. But I highly doubt FFG gets their games functioning at the level they do without any internal controlled testing. And their production quality says everything about the difference between them and GW.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Speaking from experience, the 40KRPG books were tested across multiple different external play groups as well as internal testing with the editors.
Were they ignored? Because I remember the balance of those, and quite a fair bit ends up broken..
Now who do you want even doing the play testing? Average John Doe who has a basic understanding of the rules or the top 40k players around that consistently win tournaments? That is going to have a huge impact on your findings as well.
Neither. Both are bad. I want people with jobs being testers to do testing.
You're going to be disappointed then. No tabletop company professional testers, it's just not cost effective in any way shape or form.
I am not disappointed because I know GW sucks.
That being said, it is cost effective. GW has massive profit margins and a break neck release schedule. That release schedule would be more profitable in the long run if the products were all more reliable in the long run.
WotC, FFG, several other TT companies also have the release schedules to justify professional Beta testers, none of them do though. It's not financially sensible for them to do so, whatever their current profit margin is or isn't.
You say that but I doubt it. Yes, they run "open' and "closed" beta tests with volunteers because volunteers from their communities are plentiful. But I highly doubt FFG gets their games functioning at the level they do without any internal controlled testing. And their production quality says everything about the difference between them and GW.
They have better technical writers, 3x the number of Alpha/Beta 1 tests, smaller pool of rules interaction and plenty of shonky rules make it to the the large scale beta tests.
H.B.M.C. wrote:Speaking from experience, the 40KRPG books were tested across multiple different external play groups as well as internal testing with the editors.
Of course, that's how it should be. What was the hourly pay for the external play groups though?
I would argue that it is infinite more alpha/beta tests since GW doesn't appear to do any.
smaller pool of rules interaction
Which doesn't matter. Because if they wrote their rules in a codified and structured way then the number of rules that were interacting would be interacting in simple and predictable ways that would be repeating over and over again. The problem is GW can't write rules for gak.
and plenty of shonky rules make it to the the large scale beta tests.
Which is in part what those beta tests are for. They get the game "good enough" for the testers to start working out some of the other kinks while behind the scenes internal testing continues to work out other issues. Public testing has value for certain kinds of things. Internal testing is needed for others. GW doesn't appear to do either in any capacity that matters.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Once again, you're not giving numbers or anything nor are you giving lists (because any narrative/casual event is not to be taken seriously for discussing balance issues that do clearly exist in the game).
I am not surprised to see that your ignorance matches your arrogance.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Were they ignored? Because I remember the balance of those, and quite a fair bit ends up broken..
We were not. I know of a number of books that went through pretty detailed changes as a result of feedback, including one that changed in its structure altogether. And that's before we even get to the public betas.
Lammia wrote:Of course, that's how it should be. What was the hourly pay for the external play groups though?
Paid? We didn't get paid.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/02/03 04:01:34
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Once again, you're not giving numbers or anything nor are you giving lists (because any narrative/casual event is not to be taken seriously for discussing balance issues that do clearly exist in the game).
I am not surprised to see that your ignorance matches your arrogance.
Well then enlighten me. It's your job to prove ITC changes the core balance of the game. Statistics show closer win rates in ITC (which would be for the better don't you agree?), and the larger tournaments that aren't ITC don't have this infamous variety you speak of. So yeah, I'm gonna say trying to use that single tournament as a main data point is a giant load of rubbish. You need much more than that to make your point.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
In fact, didn't Slayer-Fan himself say that earlier in this thread?
It's ten pages and I'm way too lazy to check back ,but I know several people said that GW already did that.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
If you change the rules of chess, it's not chess anymore.
How about that?
Unless you can show me an official GW publication with the ITC missions and terrain rules then it is not the real 40k. It's a 3rd party homebrew, and that's that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/10 17:40:52
GW obviously uses ITC to some extent. Look at the triple whammy they laid down after their team's debacle vs Flyrants. How GW can't see abuses coming at this point blows my mind.
Ishagu wrote: If you change the rules of chess, it's not chess anymore.
How about that?
Unless you can show me an official GW publication with the ITC missions and terrain rules then it is not the real 40k. It's a 3rd party homebrew, and that's that.
Didn't the Warhammer World or some other GW Tournament use the first-floor blocks LoS rule?
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
Now who do you want even doing the play testing? Average John Doe who has a basic understanding of the rules or the top 40k players around that consistently win tournaments? That is going to have a huge impact on your findings as well.
Neither. Both are bad. I want people with jobs being testers to do testing.
You're going to be disappointed then. No tabletop company professional testers, it's just not cost effective in any way shape or form.
I am not disappointed because I know GW sucks.
That being said, it is cost effective. GW has massive profit margins and a break neck release schedule. That release schedule would be more profitable in the long run if the products were all more reliable in the long run.
WotC, FFG, several other TT companies also have the release schedules to justify professional Beta testers, none of them do though. It's not financially sensible for them to do so, whatever their current profit margin is or isn't.
You say that but I doubt it. Yes, they run "open' and "closed" beta tests with volunteers because volunteers from their communities are plentiful. But I highly doubt FFG gets their games functioning at the level they do without any internal controlled testing. And their production quality says everything about the difference between them and GW.
They have better technical writers, 3x the number of Alpha/Beta 1 tests, smaller pool of rules interaction and plenty of shonky rules make it to the the large scale beta tests.
H.B.M.C. wrote:Speaking from experience, the 40KRPG books were tested across multiple different external play groups as well as internal testing with the editors.
Of course, that's how it should be. What was the hourly pay for the external play groups though?
...wait what? Wizards (the publishers of Magic) do a massive amount of Alpha and Beta testing of all cards in a set before publishing. They test 200+ Individual cards and their interactions with other existing standard (1,200) and block (400) legal cards, all of which have anything from basic stats to complex rules available for interaction. Their design schedule runs 2 years in advance (which includes for Alpha testing) and is followed by a development cycle 1 year in advance (which includes for Beta testing). WotC is very nearly the practical gold standard for game publishing, which explains its dominance in the CCGs format since 1992 (28 years).
...and even they make outrageous, arguably foreseeable mistakes (Skullclamp, affinity, marvel, power9, etc.).
But their budget is probably an order of magnitude greater than GW, with lower capex costs, and a cheaper product capable of deployment at scale for a cheap RRP.
Ishagu wrote: If you change the rules of chess, it's not chess anymore.
How about that?
Sure it can. Chess' rules have changed many times over its existence. Last time I checked the chess rules that came in the box, there is no mention of a clock, yet those are used in chess competitions all the time.
Oh wait, we can't compare chess, because by you're all standards, there is no one company in charge of producing chess, so it's not a valid comparison. At least no more valid than comparing it to soccer, basketball, or hockey and all the organizations with different rulesets involved.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
Ishagu wrote: Good point. You are right, GW do own 40k.
So yes, the ITC rules are not real 40k unless GW themselves publish them.
Going back to chess, this would be quite funny: imagine putting a building in the middle of a chess board that only pawns could go through
But GW does NOT own the rule set. Fair use of models after purchase and all that.
Then you can make your own point and BA rules too and stop whining. GW is not responsible for someones houserules and it is insane to think that they should.
Ishagu wrote: Good point. You are right, GW do own 40k.
So yes, the ITC rules are not real 40k unless GW themselves publish them.
Going back to chess, this would be quite funny: imagine putting a building in the middle of a chess board that only pawns could go through
But GW does NOT own the rule set. Fair use of models after purchase and all that.
GW owns everything 40k related, and when you buy the models you don't own the IP thus you can't legally make copies.
3rd party rules, created entirely outside of the GW creative studio that impact both the missions and terrain, and thus the whole system of model interaction and balance , are a significant diversion from the real set of rules. They cannot be used to make judgements about the game, the meta they showcase is not a reflection of what it would be under the real rules, and so on.
What a synonym for "Not real"? The ITC mission rules are 100% not real rules. That's a fact. If you make your own money those are fake money. If you make your own missions those are... Fake missions? Lol you guys get the point.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2020/02/10 20:00:09
Ishagu wrote: GW owns everything 40k related, and when you buy the models you don't own the IP thus you can't legally make copies.
3rd party rules, created entirely outside of the GW creative studio that impact both the missions and terrain, and thus the whole system of model interaction and balance , are a significant diversion from the real set of rules.
False.
GW owns the Intellectual Property. This has commercial implications.
Tournament organizers own the events. They can be 40K related because they use Citadel models and the majority of the rules, but GW has zero say in how the Las Vegas Open runs their event.
The players own their games. GW has zero say on if you choose to use Tomb Kings and the Therians in your 40K game or not.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
I dont want to use any of gws rules. But the community seems to want to use the points fairly universally, as well as the gwbrb. So im a bit stuck. Only the missions see variance.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/10 20:08:31
