Topic: Risks of the Tourney Scene Playtesting?

[Wyddr]

First off, I should say I'm very pleased that GW seems to have playtested 8th edition as much as it has.

That said, is anybody a little worried that the sole input they seem to have gleaned is from tourney players? Nothing specifically against tourney players, but over the years it has become very clear that tournaments are a very different style of play than people who play casually or in campaigns or even at single specific events. Remember Ard Boyz? Have you guys been looking at the tourney lists that win the LVO?

Might it be that these playtesters have different gaming priorities than the rest of us?

Thoughts?

[Cavalier]

Personally I'm thrilled. Especially with the inclusion of Frankie and Reece.

I'm not a tourney player AT ALL. No interest whatsoever, but I've followed Signals from the Frontline with Frankie and Reece for hundreds of episodes I've read so many of their articles and those guys want balance above all else. They've gone on and on, how balance is better for business, better for the game, better for the general mood and attitude of the community for ages.

If you watched the latest episode, Reece is absolutley losing his mind with joy over the death of the Deathstar. Dude has ranted, on and on and on about how much he hates Deathstars and really how much he hates powergaming in general ever since I've started listening to their podcast and following their work.

Their philosophy aside, the data that they've coalated by running the ITC, tracking the performance of the various faction, the process of the managing the ITC FAQ with an eye towards game balance, and their experience in terms of just being players, means these guys were better prepared than almost anyone I can imagine in terms of experience for playtesting the new edition.

I think to really judge, you gotta go back and listen to what these guys have said over the years. Read their articles, listen to some of the backlog of podcasts (though the most recent one is a perfect introduction to where these guys stand in terms of attitude towards the game). Like I said I'm not a tourney player and have no intention of ever going down that road, but I don't think you could ask for a better group of play testers to work hand in hand with the GW staff.

Here's the latest episode of their podcast to get a feel for things. You only gotta listen/watch for the first 10 minutes to get the vibe of where these guys are coming from. Give it a watch

 Signals from the Frontline #531: NewHammer Coming in to Focus - YouTube

[Irisado]

I still remember back to the bad old days of 'Ard Boyz and a lot of 'competitive' tournament types who used to post on forums, so I am also concerned about the fact that is seems to be tournament players who have conducted the vast majority of the play testing.  It may well be that they are those, such as Reece (see Cavalier's post above) who are against the power gaming approach, but in the end most tournament play is geared towards a level of competitiveness which is less likely to occur outside of that environment.

All of that said, one argument in favour of tournament players conducting the play testing is that they are very likely to spot abusive and overpowered combinations.  As the essence of most tournament play is to produce the best possible list, I would like to think that a lot of the power gaming combinations which could have arisen have already been prevented from slipping through the net during the play testing stage.  This would be the optimistic way of assessing the development of the latest edition.

[Partninja]

I'm not too familiar with AoS, but since 40k will also have the different game play modes, wouldn't that be an indicator that it shouldn't be a problem? As Cavalier stated, it seems that this edition should so well balanced that it should be ok.

[Fenris]

I think if the game gets balanced on a tournament level, it's only for the better greater good.
On the flip side it may be that those playtesters overestimate the casual player and expects them to do whats most optimal in each situation and may not take into account, that more casual players forget a rule or forget to shoot with a unit and so on.

[Lorizael]

I'm always jumpy with the idea of tournament play taking over, or having a bigger hand in things.
But I think the only real issue is when the game is unbalanced or has sub-optimal units already- that's when "net-lists" and meta becomes a thing.
Ideally, competetive players should want lots of options, lots of different ways of playing their chosen army, lots of different tactics and strategies available. That's what eliminates power play and cookie cutter armies that you see everyone playing.
If that's what these guys are bringing to the table then all is well!

Remember, it's not just these 2 who are playtesting, there will be others! Choosing to highlight these TOs as play testers is surely, at least partly, a marketing plan.

[MagicJuggler]

I feel the main risk with tournament playtesting is that there's a correlation vs causation mindset, or that individual players have their own preferences and biases. That, and players are vindictive and will either overnerf a powerful/unpopular army, or nerf a core rule while caring not about the collateral damage.

[Lord of Winter and War]

One thing to keep in mind too, is that they didn't just have flg test the rules. Nova and adepticon folks did too (amongst others). All have very different philosophy on the game. Adepticon folks are very much more invested in narrative and feel of games, while flg folks tend to be a more numbers people.

I think the benefits of testing by people who organize events, is that they have seen/ experienced more games of 7th and tend to have a very good eye on trends and what does and doesn't work. If something is broken in competitive play, it's probably also broken in narrative play too.

I think the biggest thing, is looking for what constantly slows the game down and points of contention. If you run multiple 20+ people events, you will very quickly see the sticking points in the rules and then know what to look for in the new edition.

Templates, psychic phase, psychic powers, and multiple characters joining squads were big issues constantly across the board, and events help showcase these things. Either they break the game, or bog the game down.

These are the things I'm most happy are changed about 8th, as hopefully we won't need 3 hours rounds to finish events, and casual games can be quicker too (so we can play more games!)

[Wyddr]

I feel the main risk with tournament playtesting is that there's a correlation vs causation mindset, or that individual players have their own preferences and biases. That, and players are vindictive and will either overnerf a powerful/unpopular army, or nerf a core rule while caring not about the collateral damage.

This is my main concern as well, but KS's point is apt. Still adopting a "wait and see" approach.