[Playtesting - an advantage or disadvantage for competitive play?]

*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.

[Playtesting - an advantage or disadvantage for competitive play?]

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.

[Playtesting - an advantage or disadvantage for competitive play?]

Dear Jack,

Let me preface by saying: I prefer have playtesters (PTs) in the competitive environment, over the alternative of a group not allowed in events. I think the benefits far outweigh the downsides. So I hope you keep showing up and will feel welcome to do so in the future.

By extension of that, I hypothesize the Playtesters Paradox™: To achieve a balanced competitive scene by giving the best players an advantage

Ethics in playtesting

Having said that, it does become a question of ethics, how the PT group handles this, I believe. Whether or not there is an actual advantage in being a PT, is a matter of perception. In a lot of ways (like Jack said to me), it is irrelevant if the (perceived) advantage is actually there. Fact is, a part of the community perceives your status as PT as an being advantageous. It is impossible to prove whether it is or not.

With that in mind, I am surprised by the defensiveness and victimizing is see from the PT group. Whether it be on off-hand jokes or serious topics like these. Trivializing the advantage to the point of calling it a disadvantage (evidently) feels disingenuous to a part of the community.  It helps create a divide that I don’t believe needs to exist.

I believe the PT group should ask them selves how they want to handle their position within the community. I hope that this backlash (if we can call it that) causes a discussion of ethics, introspective and morality within the PT group. It would be disappointing if the conclusion would be “let’s not talk as openly about this again”, that would reduce the level of transparency even more.

ETC

I assume the best intention, so I believe it to be unintended, but Jack’s topic  feels like a straw man for the ETC discussion. Saying having half the England team being PT is a disadvantage, while at the same time using playtesting time to prep for ETC is ethically questionable in my opinion. You can’t have your cake and eat it.

Most people have a good moral compass. They will instinctively feel that there is something wrong with this situation. Whether they feel there is a problem, differs, but most will see an ethical dilemma. By denying the dilemma is there, you imply concern for the health of the competitive scene is hyperbolic. People do find it important and the PT team, to an extent, exists because we (and the PT team and GW) do.

I will say that I think the problem is way less pronounced in singled than it is in teams events. 

Solution

I hope you’ll allow me to indulge and propose a possible solution. Proactiveness and assertiveness are great tools in situations like this. You cannot be certain whether or not there is an advantage, but you can mitigate for a possible advantage. By saying, “we as a group, will self-restrict (or self-comp, to stay in jargon), by not using new tomes for 2 months after release for singles and 4 months after release for team events, to mitigate any unintentional advantage we may gained by foreknowledge”. Help people understand that it is not your intention to take advantage, communicate about what you do in testing and what the moral values of the PT group are.

My 2 cents.

 Theo

*Full transparency: I am the ETC captain for the Netherlands and have a stake in this discussion, as I feel we need a change in that event and have been advocating that.