If they playtested their games, how could they release a 2nd or 3rd edition
at $60-80 a crack?
Fortunately we have a mature group of gamers that don't insist on stupidity.
BTW Warmaster is a really good game on the first try!
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: <deaconblue3_at_...>
To: <netepic_at_yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 3:56 PM
Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] Implications of "epic" proportions
> On another note, unlike other companies GW doesn't playtest their
> games.I laugh at how they always want to push the point on how
> "exhaustive" their testing is, but yet they are the only company I
> know that doesn't employ outside playtesters to test their games. IMO
> if a pair of eyes other than those of the designer doesn't see the
> game it is flawed, this is NOT sure testing of the rules. Of course
> you can throw that in with GW's usual patronizing attitude of "well
> you just don't have the right attitude to play GW games", as an excuse
> to cover their shoddy rules. It seems if a particular problem did not
> come up during their "testing" its either unimportant or your
> "cheating".
>
> Peter
>
>
> -->This is why I laugh at the reports they make after visiting the US,
> and seeing how people play at the tournaments. A few years ago, after
> the Chicago tourney, they were shocked at the way people built and played
> their armies, "bending the rules" to create these massive armies. In
> other words, players were following the letter of the rules, and not the
> "spirit." IMO, the lack of outside play testing by GW is a major flaw in
> their design process. With all their play testing done in house, with
> the same core of people, they don't get enough variety of opinions to
> properly find the flaws, and the weak points in the wording of their
> rules. The problem of familiarity is paramount here. They get so used
> to the styles of people's play, their army constructions, and tactics,
> that it is no longer a real play test. They can get away with leaving
> some things "unsaid" because it is already understood by the "play
> testers," and thus never makes it into the rules. The AC/Cyclone for
> Wolf Guard termies in 40K2ed is a prime example. The other problem is a
> certain degree of "British arrogance" about it all (no offense intended
> to our UK list members, it's not universal). They go about their
> designing with certain cultural and social attitudes that do not apply to
> the rest of the world, and they can't see that it is an issue. They
> simply can't accept that someone will do anything to win, especially if
> there is no rule against it. They have a problem accepting the concept
> of a power gamer. That's why I always laugh when they complain about the
> way Americans or Australians play their games. For many of us, in the
> States and elsewhere, it's a matter of "well yeah, of course there are
> those that will do that," but they never seem to get the idea. But test
> playing properly isn't enough. You have to listen to what the testers
> say about the game. I test played ADnD2ed back in the day. We played in
> extensively for a few months, and submitted our reports. T$R ignored
> almost all of the play test results (I found this out later), and
> published the original play test edition almost verbatim. I'm hearing
> similar things about 3E, but not nearly on the scale as happened with 2E.
> AS I see things, GW is constantly "test playing" their games, withe each
> new edition. They do react to fan input, if only too late to really be
> effective in making changes. Look at the amounts of updates and errata
> that come out for each edition, in response to player questions, and
> flaws discovered at tourneys or conventions. It's a bad design process
> and philosophy.
>
> Josh R
>
> Minister for General Mayhem
> "Don't let the bastards grind you down." Gen. Joseph Stilwell
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
Received on Fri Apr 06 2001 - 11:25:40 UTC