Playtesting - an advantage or disadvantage for competitive play?

[Theo Jansen]

18 hours ago, PlasticCraic said:

Very good post @Theo Jansen 

I think there's a lot of related but distinct discussions we could have around the playtesting process.  Some of these are (with my opinions italicised):

Is it a net benefit to the game?  Yes, massively so.

Is it perfect?  No, just as we can't expect any process to be perfect, but we should constantly strive to improve.

Do they do a good job?  Yes, I think so, looking at some of the things they have caught.  The relevant comparison is not a subjective, imaginary perfect version of a given book, but what that book looked like before playtesting.

Is it fair to criticise the process?  Yes with an asterisk.  From someone on the outside looking in, the UK scene seems very factional and I could well imagine that criticising the process is used as a proxy for criticising the individuals involved / scoring points in personal feuds.  Hopefully when there is well-reasoned, constructive criticism of the process, that doesn't get misconstrued as criticism of the individuals.

Do the playtesters get an advantage in individual events?  Already discussed extensively in this thread and beyond, with some good points raised on all sides.  Minor if any in my opinion.

Do the playtesters get an advantage in the ETC / other team events?  Yes, and it's probably quite significant.

It's this last one that is the one that I would argue deserves most focus, given that the reason this blew up as a topic was specifically because of comments made on the Bad Dice review of the Lumineth book, by a playtester who represents England at the ETC .

In the context of ETC, having a team of mostly / all playtesters is advantageous in several ways:

• You know which way the meta is likely to go before everybody else
• This can and does inform your portfolio of armies (confirmed on the podcast)
• You know whether to invest time and tournament reps in specific armies
• You know if an army has a likely hard counter looming

All of these things are huge in an event where pairings are critical.

I think that context is something that deserves specific discussion.  For ETC specifically I would suggest an earlier cut off date for what is valid.  It's not a perfect solution, because it means you're likely playing with an "old" ruleset, but it would solve the issue of big swings in the meta right before the event that some teams knew already knew about in detail, and most teams didn't.

Finally I'd like to say that there are several red herrings that come up whenever playtesting comes up that I would like to address in advance:

"They're great players" Yes they are, and sincere hats off to them for their many achievements.  But that is tangential to this specific discussion.  You could put Usain Bolt in rocket boots, and say he would have won the race anyway, and that would be true.

"The game would be worse without playstesting" Agreed.  Suggesting that playstesters have an advantage in team events is in no way advocating for the abandonment of the entire playtesting process.

Interested to hear everyone's thoughts on the above, but especially from playtesters on whether they agree / acknowledge that they have an advantage for the ETC specifically, and what if anything they would suggest as an outcome for that.

Thanks for the reply. I think you have managed to get to the root of it. 

ETC is blatantly competitive, nothing held back type situation. Anything that could even suggest any sort of advantage and mitigated where possible.

[Theo Jansen]

*Should mitigated where possible.

The team has responded already, saying that having only 3 PTs on the team,with NDAs, makes it a disadvantage. I've not made it a secret that I find that disingenuous. More so in light of sharing that they have been testing with unreleased armies. Meaning that playtest time is being used specifically to prep for ETC. Why would you do such a thing if it is a disadvantage... Also, you don't break your NDA by telling q team member "psst, I think you should be playing list X, not list Y".

I'll keep pushing my point, we need a longer window.

[Boobashamaka]

Hello @Jack Armstrong, remember me? our paths crossed in Belgium, still remembering an awesome game against you... 

Thank you for bringing that topic on the table, brave initiative of yours.

As a Belgium team member who was supposed to go to the ETC this summer, I would like to hear you about how playtesters can impact team game, especially when it comes to creating team rosters. While in my opinion there is irrelevant to no advantage in individual tournaments, it could be sensibly different for team  games. What is your opinion on that?

Thank you anyway for everything you and all playtesters bring to the community! awesome job and no jealousy

 

 

 

 

[Ninelives]

On 6/26/2020 at 3:40 PM, Sleboda said:

I can't claim to know current stuff, but back when I tested, we were instructed to play 2000 points, 4x8 table, pitched battle for the vast majority of our games. We were to report our lists and the result, plus highlights if possible.

We were actively discouraged from sharing our thoughts on the clarity of rules.

4 by 8 ? not by 6 ? 

[Sleboda]

On 6/30/2020 at 7:51 AM, Ninelives said:

4 by 8 ? not by 6 ? 

It was Warhammer, not AoS, and at that time 4 x 8 was standard. Heck, I actually even still have one of the old Games Day tables from that era in my house, and sure enough, it's 4 x 8.

Edited July 5, 2020 by Sleboda
Typo

[Ninelives]

On 6/30/2020 at 4:48 PM, Sleboda said:

It was Warhammer, not AoS, and at that time 4 x 8 was standard. Heck, I actually even still have one of the old a Games Day tables from that era in my house, and sure enough, it's 4 x 8.

Ohh, I never knew that WFB was on 8 by 4 !

[The World Tree]

21 hours ago, Ninelives said:

Ohh, I never knew that WFB was on 8 by 4 !

I never saw anyone in the UK use that in 'normal' 2000 point gaming from 6th-8th edition. Not to discredit what Sleboda said.

[Ninelives]

Well now I am just confused. hahaha 

[HollowHills]

I was thinking about this a bit in the wake of GHB changes.

I stand by my previous point that I don't think there is any real clear advantage in testing an army ahead of time.

However, I do think that core rule adjustments could give you quite a big advantage. For example, the GHB2020 was playtested and finished in late 2019. These playtesters have presumably been aware of the changes to realm rules, artifacts and ward saves since then.

If they were signed up for an event in July or August 2020, which say sold tickets from spring 2020, they could reasonably expect the GHB would be out by then. As such they could build and test lists based around these core changes months and months before the tournament.

For example, knowing you have a 50% chance of being able to use the ulgu realm rules makes the spell portal significantly more appealing. 

[Gaz Taylor]

20 hours ago, HollowHills said:

These playtesters have presumably been aware of the changes to realm rules, artifacts and ward saves since then.

Maybe. How I understand the process, is that you don’t see the finished product until it’s out. I did some of the Epic Armageddon testing years ago for some of the lists that came out after the core game, and I found that Jervis kept changing stuff. I think he got excited and liked tweaking, which is fine if your job is 24/7 gaming but when you have a job and family gets kind of crazy at times.

So just because you are a tester, doesn’t mean you are 100% certain of what will be at the end. Plus you are looking at so much different stuff, you don’t get chance to remember it all.

As I’ve mentioned (either here or somewhere, I’m loosing track of time in lockdown), I personally think the only advantage you get being a play tester is communication skills and playing lots of games. But you tend to find all the good players do this anyway because they talk to each other sharing ideas and play lots of games 😉

[HollowHills]

2 hours ago, Gaz Taylor said:

, is that you don’t see the finished product until it’s out. I

I know for a fact that you do sometimes see the finished product. 

Still, they are unlikely to know for sure what is finished and what isn't until release.