Full rules and all Indexes

The playtesters are the scapegoats, since their input was used directly to impact the game. Other playtesters were there, yeah, but these guys were the frontmen. I can't blame GW if GW was just going off their advice.

I have known people who playtested for GW in the past who said that GW did not listen to them.

I have no idea who Frankie and company are, but it seems unlikely (and a terrible idea) that they were the only playtesters.

Normally the playtesters' job is only to report their experiences to the game designers; they don't get to make recommendations. (I have no idea what this interaction was like, of course.)

As a former play tester for Wyrd (for Malifaux 1st edition) I can say what level of input we got. We got to make recommendations as much as we like - some made it in, others didn't. We were encouraged to break the game so that loop holes could be closed. We got asked for naming ideas, rules ideas, themes, designs and more.

It was a hugely open process!

I am not sure GW would approach it the same way but its obvious FLG had the chance to provide feedback to GW and some of it was not picked up by the design studio. That's very obvious by the way they are saying things like the CWE vs Ynnari stuff. Clearly suggestions were made and not taken up if they are changing their own armies to the other faction that's similar.

We don't know their level of interaction, but these people were used by the corporation as a front for their community posts. I take that as a sign they were very closely tied to GW's game-making process. I have a hard time believing they would have been used in such a way had their recommendations or input not been valued. As such, I blame them for the changes I don't like, as I can only assume that those were the result of some recommendations made by playtesters.

TeenageAngst wrote:

We don't know their level of interaction, but these people were used by the corporation as a front for their community posts. I take that as a sign they were very closely tied to GW's game-making process. I have a hard time believing they would have been used in such a way had their recommendations or input not been valued. As such, I blame them for the changes I don't like, as I can only assume that those were the result of some recommendations made by playtesters.

That's childish and short sighted.

They are play testers - not the designers. If you don't like it, blame GW - not people who were engaged to test it. That's like blaming beta testers on Steam for developers releasing games you didn't like.

Yes, their input was obviously valued but they are not GW employees and they are not the principal designers - they are testers.

The buck stops with the designers - not the testers who ultimately can only provide feedback - not make changes to the rules for publishing.

I would almost buy that, @Massaen if it wasn't for how incredibly full of themselves all the play testers I've seen have acted. FLG, Mike Blandt, all absolutely stuck up their own butts about how important they were to the process and how amazing this new version of the game is that they helped make because they're the best and everyone knows it.

And you know all of that and have that invulnerable inside knowledge because...?

On a serious note: if this thread is solely about complaining about play testers and GW, please open a new one please. I've got no interest in clicking through 11 pages on the phone just to see that the latest comments are just made up accusations and rants.
Thank you.
Edit:
PS: I just created a thread here. Feel free to use it whenever you feel the primal urge to rant.

http://www.thedarkcity.net/t15470-rant-about-gw-and-play-testers#185621

What i personally want to know about the new rules is will the army be skilled based?
In that if my Dark Eldar went up against any of your armies, the determining factor in my victory or loss would be in my skills in playing my army vs that of my opponent.

Sure luck will be a factor, we all know that sometimes the dices hate you.

i don´t want to win or lose because my army is either so underpowered or overpowered that no matter what my opponent did, i would more or less be guaranteed either a victory or loss.

Erikjust wrote:

Sure luck will be a factor, we all know that sometimes the dices hate you.

i don´t want to win or lose because my army is either so underpowered or overpowered that no matter what my opponent did, i would more or less be guaranteed either a victory or loss.  

To be honest, I'm actually quite concerned about the luck factor. The number of weapons that have random shots and/or which do random damage seem like they could make games very swingy (but based on luck rather than skill).

The Shredder wrote:

Erikjust wrote:

Sure luck will be a factor, we all know that sometimes the dices hate you.

i don´t want to win or lose because my army is either so underpowered or overpowered that no matter what my opponent did, i would more or less be guaranteed either a victory or loss.  

To be honest, I'm actually quite concerned about the luck factor. The number of weapons that have random shots and/or which do random damage seem like they could make games very swingy (but based on luck rather than skill).

However, there is a reduction of luck factor in other areas (choosing combat drugs, no deep strike scatter, no blast scatter, etc), so I think that it more than evens out, especially since you can just limit the number of random hit weapons in your list if you find them to be too unreliable.

That and getting re-roll via command points is not something to sneeze at. It really helps and those random dice can add a bit of fun to the games - just don't rely on them or take them in enough numbers to average out the odds

Right those are once per phase too, so you can re-roll that D^ damage if you really needed to to wreck a vehicle.

Also from what i have heard GW does plan to revisits the armies on a yearly basis, so that if there´s one army that has become so overpowered, that they are more or less whip out the rest of the armies when ever they encounter them (hello 7th edition Eldar).
That army will receive a nerf so that it will be more balanced.

I am hoping this will mean that a skilled enough Dark Eldar player might actually have a chance of getting in first place in the bigger tournaments around the world.

Well we are getting a Mini Codex 1st, im guessing some re-balances will be done before all these are out.

A fluid ruleset is going to be the death of this game. They're going to completely invalidate armies on a rotating basis, just like the did with the Tau.

I do hope it won´t be like that, that all they will use it for is for some re-balancing issues and not a well this army is more or less useless now kind of thing.


If people on a yearly basis more or less have to buy a whole new army in order to keep up, then GW will be back in the position where people are leaving the game.

TeenageAngst wrote:

A fluid ruleset is going to be the death of this game. They're going to completely invalidate armies on a rotating basis, just like the did with the Tau.

Honestly, I think it'll be lose:lose.

If they do updates infrequently, players will be annoyed by broken stuff staying broken for ages.

If they do updates frequently, players will be annoyed both by their favourite builds being invalidated and also by having to constantly check back and cross-reference everything to get the new point costs.

The Shredder wrote:

Honestly, I think it'll be lose:lose.

If they do updates infrequently, players will be annoyed by broken stuff staying broken for ages.

If they do updates frequently, players will be annoyed both by their favourite builds being invalidated and also by having to constantly check back and cross-reference everything to get the new point costs.

I did hear rumors that GW plans on release an app a little like Privateer Press´s War room, where all the armies will be avlerble and that it will be updated as the armies are being updated.
If so i this digital age it might soften the blow.

Also i think whether or not a fluid ruleset will ruin or won´t ruin the game will depend on how hard GW goes at it.

Let´s say from the start 5 different army builds are available for Dark Eldar, GW does an update and one of the 5 builds becomes inefficient but is replaced with another build.
Now for Dark Eldar Players this new build means, that they might have to buy a 2 new units of 4 Grotesques and a Dark Eldar Haemonculi.
The rest can be taken from the other builds and GW has calculated that there is an 8 out of 10 chance that most Dark Eldar players will have those units.

If such "soft" reworks will be all that will be done it might work.
Another thing entirely would be if coming the next update 4 out of the 5 builds, are now completely useless and you more or less have to buy a new army if you still want to compete.

That would piss off a lot of players i think, where as the other while still pissing of some players it won´t be so serious, as the the one where you have to buy an entirely new army.

We have to remember GW is a business whose livelihood depends on them selling miniatures, and if they don´t sell enough their investors will start breathing down their neck.
sure the model with every year releasing a new build might eventually lead to you having bought a 2 armies worth of miniatures.

But there´s a difference between having to spend 400$ now or having it spread over 4 to 8 years.

Quote :

I did hear rumors that GW plans on release an app a little like Privateer Press´s War room, where all the armies will be avlerble and that it will be updated as the armies are being updated.
If so i this digital age it might soften the blow.

Oh just what we need, GW sneaking updates in on digital apps like it was Starcraft II or something.

Personally I wish GW would just let the meta work itself out and not monkey with stuff unless it is *flagrantly* broken. Like Riptide Wings, Ynnari, and Necron Pylons. 7th edition was a dumpster fire yes but there was a meta that had evolved and continued to evolve even with the broken things in the game.

Maybe we will get lucky then and just have them fix things that are "flagrantly* broken.
But it would still need an update and it is cheaper to do something digitally, rather then having to print a whole new book from scratch.

They updated Pink Horrors with a book just fine.

Also they will never only fix flagrantly broken things because as we all know, power creep sells models.

All models working well on the table sells more, and having mini games where you are incentivize will sell even more.