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.

well, by what everyone else understands by the term "playtesting" we know that GW has never done it

what they call playtesting is what other companies call an alpha test or "concept phase"

the final product was never play tested, hence nobody can give proper feedback on the game itself but only on certain concepts or parts of the game

 Daedalus81 wrote:


There's an impossible number of permutations and no one played games to make sure all the enhancements and strats were ok. It just isn't feasible and people seem to think that's the only way to do it.

As long as GW never sunsets units it's going to be near impossible to test all the units and combinations.

 Eldarsif wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


There's an impossible number of permutations and no one played games to make sure all the enhancements and strats were ok. It just isn't feasible and people seem to think that's the only way to do it.

As long as GW never sunsets units it's going to be near impossible to test all the units and combinations.

Given the complaints when GW does sunset stuff*, it's never likely to do it to the degree required to bring unit count down to a "manageable " number


* jump pack chaos lord, box naught, etc etc

Voss wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I heard from a reliable source on 4chan that 11th will be playtested.

I think the chance of any 40k edition ever being playtested is zero

Only if you ignore the playtesters who played it, but sure.

I think they can be safely ignored, yes. When casual readers find a 75damage combo within 60 seconds of opening a pdf "playtesters" might as well not exist and the "impossible number of permutations" excuse is laughable.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I heard from a reliable source on 4chan that 11th will be playtested.

I think the chance of any 40k edition ever being playtested is zero

Only if you ignore the playtesters who played it, but sure.

I think they can be safely ignored, yes. When casual readers find a 75damage combo within 60 seconds of opening a pdf "playtesters" might as well not exist and the "impossible number of permutations" excuse is laughable.

I feel this is similar to situations we run into with MTG where broken combos sneak by. I remember a member of the design staff saying that basically it was inevitable, regardless of how much playtesting, and that cards realistically get tested hundreds of times more in the first few hours of the larger community being aware of them, than they were tested internally.

 sharkticon wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I heard from a reliable source on 4chan that 11th will be playtested.

I think the chance of any 40k edition ever being playtested is zero

Only if you ignore the playtesters who played it, but sure.

I think they can be safely ignored, yes. When casual readers find a 75damage combo within 60 seconds of opening a pdf "playtesters" might as well not exist and the "impossible number of permutations" excuse is laughable.

I feel this is similar to situations we run into with MTG where broken combos sneak by. I remember a member of the design staff saying that basically it was inevitable, regardless of how much playtesting, and that cards realistically get tested hundreds of times more in the first few hours of the larger community being aware of them, than they were tested internally.

I think the reason MTG gets away with it more than GW is because MTG is basically still running on the same rules. They tweak and adjust but broadly speaking its the same system and many of the stupidly broken combos appear in their open format where you've thousands of card combos.

GW on the other hand often has broken stuff that's really "in your face" broken. Not to mention every few years they rebuild the entire game ground up. So any progress is undone very quickly. It results in a constantly changing system that keeps having the same probelms that don't get resolved because each time you get near to resolving them the whole thing gets messed up for a new edition.


So for MTG the balance issues are more "this combo is broken" rather than "this entire mechanic is broken or works in a broken way"

 Overread wrote:


Not to mention every few years they rebuild the entire game ground up.

Ah, if only that were true….40K still stubbornly clings to concepts that were outdated when Rogue Trader released - IGO-UGO turns, worshipping at the altar of the holy D6 still when that humble dice barely allows any differentiation between the vast number of units that pollute the game nowadays. There are a lot of better sci-fi skirmish games out there in 2023 that are better games than 40K. But they don’t have 30+ years of lore and momentum behind them. It’s an ouroboros at this point - everyone plays 40K… because everyone plays 40K. It hardly even matters if the game is good or not.

Current scuttlebutt says that all those variable unit sizes we keep seeing aren't accurate, and that points are for blocks of models. So, for example, where it says a unit of 5-10 Terminators in the Index is actually 5 or 10 Terminators.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Current scuttlebutt says that all those variable unit sizes we keep seeing aren't accurate, and that points are for blocks of models. So, for example, where it says a unit of 5-10 Terminators in the Index is actually 5 or 10 Terminators.

I'll bet that the variable sizes are accurate, but they're taking the Power Level model of forcing you to round up to the higher cost.

5 dudes for 150pts, or 6-10 for 300pts.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Current scuttlebutt says that all those variable unit sizes we keep seeing aren't accurate, and that points are for blocks of models. So, for example, where it says a unit of 5-10 Terminators in the Index is actually 5 or 10 Terminators.

Can’t say I enjoy that, but at least they upped the transport capacities to make room for characters.

 catbarf wrote:
I'll bet that the variable sizes are accurate, but they're taking the Power Level model of forcing you to round up to the higher cost.

Which would mean that all their talk of "Power Level is dead, points is the future!" was a load of nonsense.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
I'll bet that the variable sizes are accurate, but they're taking the Power Level model of forcing you to round up to the higher cost.

Which would mean that all their talk of "Power Level is dead, points is the future!" was a load of nonsense.

After what they did with most wargear towards the end of 9th, it seemed quite likely that GW's plan for the future of points was just to essentially change it into Power Level in all but name, so they could claim "here is the points everyone demanded" while actually keeping to the lazily less granular Power Level design still.

 ikeulhu wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
I'll bet that the variable sizes are accurate, but they're taking the Power Level model of forcing you to round up to the higher cost.

Which would mean that all their talk of "Power Level is dead, points is the future!" was a load of nonsense.

After what they did with most wargear towards the end of 9th, it seemed quite likely that GW's plan for the future of points was just to essentially change it into Power Level in all but name, so they could claim "here is the points everyone demanded" while actually keeping to the lazily less granular Power Level design still.

It’s how they have done age of sigmar points for ages, and according to a bunch of folk who disliked power levels intensely in another thread, points done like this is still way better than power levels.

To me, this way is the best of both worlds and the worst of both. Being higher numbers, typically 3 figures means they are more granular and can be tweak much more finely than old power levels, but for some people the unit costing the same regardless of wargear is a big turn off. For me, it’s fine. I liked power levels and this is much the same, just wish the points were on the data card but get why they aren’t.

But you lose out on any variable squad sizes.

To use the most obvious example: What's the point of being able to transport 8 Terminators in a Land Raider Crusade if they only come in squads of 5 or 10. At most you can attach two characters (Terminator Captain + Terminator Ancient), netting you 7 Terminators, and leaving a slot free.

Andykp wrote:

 ikeulhu wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
I'll bet that the variable sizes are accurate, but they're taking the Power Level model of forcing you to round up to the higher cost.

Which would mean that all their talk of "Power Level is dead, points is the future!" was a load of nonsense.

After what they did with most wargear towards the end of 9th, it seemed quite likely that GW's plan for the future of points was just to essentially change it into Power Level in all but name, so they could claim "here is the points everyone demanded" while actually keeping to the lazily less granular Power Level design still.

It’s how they have done age of sigmar points for ages, and according to a bunch of folk who disliked power levels intensely in another thread, points done like this is still way better than power levels.

To me, this way is the best of both worlds and the worst of both. Being higher numbers, typically 3 figures means they are more granular and can be tweak much more finely than old power levels, but for some people the unit costing the same regardless of wargear is a big turn off. For me, it’s fine. I liked power levels and this is much the same, just wish the points were on the data card but get why they aren’t.

The first version of the Goonhammer Imperial Knights article included the line "As with everything in 10th, all your upgrades are now free." and the leaked Tyranid points only showed a single extra points upgrade (on the Tyrannofex).

I may need to start painting up some Hunter-Killer Missiles.

So, I have been out of the game for a LONG time (focusing more on Necromunda/Kill Team and modeling/painting), but Commissars can't join a Command Squad?

How long has that been a thing?

I mean, I know that the Command Squad and a Commissar can both join an infantry squad (which then, of course, can't fit in a Chimera), but...wasn't the POINT of a commissar to keep an eye on the officers to watch for disloyalty?

 catbarf wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Current scuttlebutt says that all those variable unit sizes we keep seeing aren't accurate, and that points are for blocks of models. So, for example, where it says a unit of 5-10 Terminators in the Index is actually 5 or 10 Terminators.

I'll bet that the variable sizes are accurate, but they're taking the Power Level model of forcing you to round up to the higher cost.

5 dudes for 150pts, or 6-10 for 300pts.

I had been wondering how they would do crusade rules with Points instead of Power, and yeah 5 or 10 man blobs seems like the simplest solution to them.

Wait, am I missing something here, or have tech-priest dominus and Cawl lost Master of Machines (and therefore the ability to repair vehicles)?

Tech priests that can’t repair stuff? Good grief.

Da Butcha wrote:
So, I have been out of the game for a LONG time (focusing more on Necromunda/Kill Team and modeling/painting), but Commissars can't join a Command Squad?

How long has that been a thing?

I mean, I know that the Command Squad and a Commissar can both join an infantry squad (which then, of course, can't fit in a Chimera), but...wasn't the POINT of a commissar to keep an eye on the officers to watch for disloyalty?

Considering you will join both to a unit 9/10 due to "or they can easily be shot at" i'd rather take the simplyfied rule that prevents potential layered joining BS than the slightly more fluffy sounding one.

CoALabaer wrote:

Da Butcha wrote:
So, I have been out of the game for a LONG time (focusing more on Necromunda/Kill Team and modeling/painting), but Commissars can't join a Command Squad?

How long has that been a thing?

I mean, I know that the Command Squad and a Commissar can both join an infantry squad (which then, of course, can't fit in a Chimera), but...wasn't the POINT of a commissar to keep an eye on the officers to watch for disloyalty?

Considering you will join both to a unit 9/10 due to "or they can easily be shot at" i'd rather take the simplyfied rule that prevents potential layered joining BS than the slightly more fluffy sounding one.

I suspect you’re right. As only two characters can join a given unit, this neatly prevents “I am put two Commisars in Command Squad, two in another, then they am all joins a 20 man squad, because it’s technically not breaking the rules.

 Gordy2000 wrote:
Wait, am I missing something here, or have tech-priest dominus and Cawl lost Master of Machines (and therefore the ability to repair vehicles)?

Tech priests that can’t repair stuff? Good grief.

I mean, that’s rather on brand for 40K…

 Gordy2000 wrote:
Wait, am I missing something here, or have tech-priest dominus and Cawl lost Master of Machines (and therefore the ability to repair vehicles)?

Tech priests that can’t repair stuff? Good grief.

To be honest i like it.
This serves to distinguish the different kinds of tech priest models ( battlefield role) and enforce a fluff hierarchy - Cawl might have the knowledge and means to do battlefield repairs, but he has better things to do.
Same as SM Firstborn, who "forget" how to infiltrate when becoming full brothers or SM Captains who do not use Meltas/Lascannons, even though there is no real reason why they could not.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

CoALabaer wrote:

Da Butcha wrote:
So, I have been out of the game for a LONG time (focusing more on Necromunda/Kill Team and modeling/painting), but Commissars can't join a Command Squad?

How long has that been a thing?

I mean, I know that the Command Squad and a Commissar can both join an infantry squad (which then, of course, can't fit in a Chimera), but...wasn't the POINT of a commissar to keep an eye on the officers to watch for disloyalty?

Considering you will join both to a unit 9/10 due to "or they can easily be shot at" i'd rather take the simplyfied rule that prevents potential layered joining BS than the slightly more fluffy sounding one.

I suspect you’re right. As only two characters can join a given unit, this neatly prevents “I am put two Commisars in Command Squad, two in another, then they am all joins a 20 man squad, because it’s technically not breaking the rules.

That still seems like an intended interaction - Regimental Attachees and Ogry Bodyguards/Nork Deddog can join Command Squads as well (and then join other squads together) but only the Ogry/Nork rules specify a limit of one model with 'Loyal Bodyguard' for joining things.

Losing a lot of upgrades does sound like 40K losing something its had for a long time, at the same time GW has bafflingly, been unable to write a good codex format since around 3-4th edition. Their formatting for the last few editions has been so page flippingly confusing that I bet they got a LOT of complaints about how its hard to build just 1 model when stats are on one page; costs on another; upgrades on another; weapons on another - all making it way way harder to actually just build 1 unit let alone an army.

WYSIWYG is also something GW is pushing harder, which is overall a good thing, but upgrades were never really part of that. You could do it (and do a lot of converting); but often it was just not sensible because one game you might drop a 1 point upgrade on a unit for a few more points to add another model into another unit and so-forth. So modelling and requiring them was just beyond most peoples sane approach to modelling.



IT seems that GW is adopting a lot of the AoS systems into 40K. Just cross your fingers the double-turn person doesn't get their fingers on the 40K rules and brings that over. Though honestly considering shooting is way more deadly in 40K, I don't think it would work one bit.

xerxeskingofking wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


There's an impossible number of permutations and no one played games to make sure all the enhancements and strats were ok. It just isn't feasible and people seem to think that's the only way to do it.

As long as GW never sunsets units it's going to be near impossible to test all the units and combinations.

Given the complaints when GW does sunset stuff*, it's never likely to do it to the degree required to bring unit count down to a "manageable " number


* jump pack chaos lord, box naught, etc etc

That much is true.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:
Losing a lot of upgrades does sound like 40K losing something its had for a long time, at the same time GW has bafflingly, been unable to write a good codex format since around 3-4th edition. Their formatting for the last few editions has been so page flippingly confusing that I bet they got a LOT of complaints about how its hard to build just 1 model when stats are on one page; costs on another; upgrades on another; weapons on another - all making it way way harder to actually just build 1 unit let alone an army.

To be fair a lot of the upgrades being lost or simplified is just Space Marines, which is why you mostly see Space Marine players complain about it. For xenos players upgrades have been so random over the editions that removing upgrades entirely would be a relief.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
I'll bet that the variable sizes are accurate, but they're taking the Power Level model of forcing you to round up to the higher cost.

Which would mean that all their talk of "Power Level is dead, points is the future!" was a load of nonsense.

yup, they have filed off the name "power level" and grabbed a marker pen and written "points" instead


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:
Losing a lot of upgrades does sound like 40K losing something its had for a long time, at the same time GW has bafflingly, been unable to write a good codex format since around 3-4th edition. Their formatting for the last few editions has been so page flippingly confusing that I bet they got a LOT of complaints about how its hard to build just 1 model when stats are on one page; costs on another; upgrades on another; weapons on another - all making it way way harder to actually just build 1 unit let alone an army.

WYSIWYG is also something GW is pushing harder, which is overall a good thing, but upgrades were never really part of that. You could do it (and do a lot of converting); but often it was just not sensible because one game you might drop a 1 point upgrade on a unit for a few more points to add another model into another unit and so-forth. So modelling and requiring them was just beyond most peoples sane approach to modelling.



IT seems that GW is adopting a lot of the AoS systems into 40K. Just cross your fingers the double-turn person doesn't get their fingers on the 40K rules and brings that over. Though honestly considering shooting is way more deadly in 40K, I don't think it would work one bit.

double turn could work, but only if they also bring over the split turn from LotR so you will always get to move before an enemy fires

Guard being an entire army of 2+ to hit, with rerolls, looks like a lot of fun.

Also, what are people's opininon on using the old aegis defence line as the new sheet? Plenty of old models are allowed to be used instead of new, like old sentinel base sizes and stuff. Aegis seems like a really odd situation though.

What length is the new kit? Maybe if you try to match the length it would be more fair.

Taken from 4chan so it may be fake or not.

 Shadow Walker wrote:
Taken from 4chan so it may be fake or not.

It's nonsense anyway, as they

a) don't understand what playtesting actually is, and confuse it with game development
b) omit the possibility of having more than 10 playtesters
c) openly ignore other possibilities (and in many cases industry standards that have existed for decades) like doing beta tests or even open alphas, having loyalty/'bug bounty' programs and so on.

Basically this meme:



Only with asinine corporate decisions and arbitrary, self-inflicted restrictions they have to adhere to.

 Shadow Walker wrote:
Taken from 4chan so it may be fake or not.

I mean real or fake it's not wrong.