Playtest Feedback Forms

[Lex]

As part of the mechanics for the Playtest team to get formalized input from the larger Warmaster community we created a set of Playtest forms.

PLAYTEST REPORTING

You can use these to report any kind of (playtest) games back to the development team with questions, observations and remarks !!

[RepublicsFury]

Now that Warmaster has gone to player supported is there a playtest team or are we looking to start a platest team?  Would that team then be sent these results?   Would we publish armylists for people to try.....


Karl

[Lex]

Now that Warmaster has gone to player supported is there a playtest team or are we looking to start a platest team?  Would that team then be sent these results?   Would we publish armylists for people to try.....


Karl

• Warmaster has been player supported for app 6 years now!
  
• There is a playtest team - it might be a little sleepy - but as you may have noticed from other posts on the forum there is a playtest weekend event scheduled this November
  
• These forms where for general usage, not just playtesters
  
• Yup, the results would flow back to the playtest team
  
• We already did once, and it would be possible to do so again, but at them moment the issue is less about armies (as most "armies not yet published" could be proxied with one of the existing Armyselectors without to much of a bother

[kyussinchains]

Are there any plans to formalise this any further?

Over on Tactical Command, we have the NetEA system wherein army lists are assigned to a specific 'Army Champion' whose main aim is to collate and schedule changes for playtest and hopefully get the list 'Approved'

this helps event organisers as they can set level playing fields, eg. Approved NetEA lists only and it avoids people turning up with slightly different army lists

Looking at the armies compendium for example, the tournament HE and Daemon lists seem to have a couple of sensible modifications to balance their slightly overpowered elements, however they are only 'recommended' for tournaments and I think some people aren't even aware of their existence

For me it would also be nice to see some of the variant lists (wood elves, beastmen, chaos dwarfs) actually being continually developed openly so sometime soon, as a community everyone can say 'yes, these are balanced and they should be included in most tournaments and people should not be afraid of using them in friendly or pick-up games either'

Maybe the remit of warmaster is viewed differently and I can respect that, but I'm quite keen to get involved in playtesting and tweaking if required

thoughts?

[Lex]

Are there any plans to formalise this any further?

We can spiffy up the set-up we have, and get some new playtesters on board.

Over on Tactical Command, we have the NetEA system wherein army lists are assigned to a specific 'Army Champion' whose main aim is to collate and schedule changes for playtest and hopefully get the list 'Approved'

this helps event organisers as they can set level playing fields, eg. Approved NetEA lists only and it avoids people turning up with slightly different army lists

That was what the Warmasters Armies publication was for, and hence the choice between Fan-armies and Tournament ones.

Looking at the armies compendium for example, the tournament HE and Daemon lists seem to have a couple of sensible modifications to balance their slightly overpowered elements, however they are only 'recommended' for tournaments and I think some people aren't even aware of their existence

For me it would also be nice to see some of the variant lists (wood elves, beastmen, chaos dwarfs) actually being continually developed openly so sometime soon, as a community everyone can say 'yes, these are balanced and they should be included in most tournaments and people should not be afraid of using them in friendly or pick-up games either'

There are not that many tournament where this is an issue.......  and in most local meta-environments they will already have either OKed or VETOed the use of certain lists.

Maybe the remit of warmaster is viewed differently and I can respect that, but I'm quite keen to get involved in playtesting and tweaking if required
thoughts?

Yup, start playtesting and report back ?

Seriously, both you and RF have raised this point, and I am OK with cleaning out the cobwebs and getting a fresh crew together.

[kyussinchains]

That was what the Warmasters Armies publication was for, and hence the choice between Fan-armies and Tournament ones.

and it's great that people have taken the time, my personal opinion is that all the armies should be tournament ones, Fan armies are great and all, but unless I'm missing something (and I could very well be!) there's nothing stopping people continuing to develop them until they reach some sort of 'tournament balanced' level

I only ask as I really like the idea of quite a few 'fan/experimental' army lists, but as someone interested in tournaments and events (I'm quite a regular at UK Epic tournaments) I'd like a collection of armies I can use in as many types of game as possible, rather than having chaos dwarf and wood elf armies sitting unused for example

to my eyes it seems like people have said 'okay that army is good enough now as it was never intended to be anything more than a fan list' then development ceases

I've been lucky enough to hook up with a good few local players and if they're amenable I'd be more than happy to work on some stuff!

[Lex]

The issue at that time was there being a fairly limited amount of tournaments and most of the people running them took part in creating the Compendium too....... 

Most local groups also appended their "playable armies" with fan-armies, so with no GW events being organized, and most organizers OK with allowing some or all of the Compendium armies their was no real incentive in pushing beyond what was achieved.

That said, you may have noticed that you and the texas ranger  have joined forces to mod the Armies Development Program........

[RepublicsFury]

and it's great that people have taken the time, my personal opinion is that all the armies should be tournament ones, Fan armies are great and all, but unless I'm missing something (and I could very well be!) there's nothing stopping people continuing to develop them until they reach some sort of 'tournament balanced' level

I only ask as I really like the idea of quite a few 'fan/experimental' army lists, but as someone interested in tournaments and events (I'm quite a regular at UK Epic tournaments) I'd like a collection of armies I can use in as many types of game as possible, rather than having chaos dwarf and wood elf armies sitting unused for example

to my eyes it seems like people have said 'okay that army is good enough now as it was never intended to be anything more than a fan list' then development ceases

I've been lucky enough to hook up with a good few local players and if they're amenable I'd be more than happy to work on some stuff!

Well... having said that I thought I'd bring up the fact that I own Texicon, a yearly game convention: www.texicon.net and though it's not GW Sponsored we could host a Yearly Warmaster Tournament, pull people in.  Hell I'd even throw $ at it for a prize.  I know I could get Pendraken and Eureka to help sponsor it. 

I also have a group that plays a heck of a lot of Warmaster and there's a second group at the game store I host games at and I'm sure both groups could help play testing.  My problem is I'd want a global moderator <looks sideways at Lex> to lead the charge as to what we need to play test and report on.  And then perhaps we can get Warmuster 3 out?!?

Thoughts?

- Karl

[Lex]

Well... having said that I thought I'd bring up the fact that I own Texicon, a yearly game convention: www.texicon.net and though it's not GW Sponsored we could host a Yearly Warmaster Tournament, pull people in.  Hell I'd even throw $ at it for a prize.  I know I could get Pendraken and Eureka to help sponsor it. 

Well, any event that stirs up attention is a good thing. I would "test the waters", but I guess there might be several US based players that might attend

I also have a group that plays a heck of a lot of Warmaster and there's a second group at the game store I host games at and I'm sure both groups could help play testing.  My problem is I'd want a global moderator <looks sideways at Lex> to lead the charge as to what we need to play test and report on.

Well, as per yesterday, you and K-chains, have custody of the Warmaster Armies Development subforum..... a good place to start at this moment would be to consider which of the Compendium armies needs more TLC to bring it up to "tournament" standard, and kick-off there. For playtesting you can generally proxy the army in question with an available one, as long as participants are aware of what=what.

In addition, look at the rules-changes the french community implemented, which makes their version a hybrid between WM-F and WM-H. They are happy enough with that to be used for most/all ?? of the French WM gaming, so it is bound to have its merits. Playtesting their changes in one or more other meta-environments might allow us to identify what would work on a more global stage (I personally am not a fan of incorporating ALL their changes, but I would accept upgrading to a new version if their would be "global evidence"

After the Warmaster Playtest Weekend in November I hope to be able to add a third area of playtesting to that list, but I want to launch that at the event, and use the feedback received there before going to a bigger crowd on it.

And then perhaps we can get Warmuster 3 out?!?

Talked with Jorge (JCHaos) on that, we might combine the eZines to optimize production, but yeah.

[vincent]

In addition, look at the rules-changes the french community implemented, which makes their version a hybrid between WM-F and WM-H. They are happy enough with that to be used for most/all ?? of the French WM gaming, so it is bound to have its merits. Playtesting their changes in one or more other meta-environments might allow us to identify what would work on a more global stage (I personally am not a fan of incorporating ALL their changes, but I would accept upgrading to a new version if their would be "global evidence"

Several comments
1. This french rule is not a WM-F / WM-H hybrid. We took WM Ancient rules *unchanged*, and *added* rules for fantasy stuff (monsters, flyers, magic). In fact the 1st edition was only an add-on book to WM Ancient. A because of lot of people are only playing WM Fantasy they did not had the rules and/or did not liked having to refer to two books so we created a single book with everything. This book is *unchanged* WM Ancient rules (well, translated to french and we removed Skirmisher rules) plus fantasy rules.
2. AFAIK all French players that are active on the French forum play by those rules. I guess there are some micro-communities not linked to the forum who still play by the official (or more likely club) rules.
3. If you need info about this rule, how it changed our games and why we are happy with it, feel free to ask me.