Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

[BR Lite] Knightworld 1.1 vs Apocrypha
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=18745		 Page 1 of 4
Author:  Morgan Vening [ Tue Jul 20, 2010 1:25 pm ]
Post subject:  [BR Lite] Knightworld 1.1 vs Apocrypha
Another game, another tanking. Nothing much learnt, except just how soft the Knights are when broken.

Crusaders, my BTS, were broken in the first turn, suffering one wound. Failing to rally, they were wiped out in the second turn, with only one more actual wound caused. Two of them still had functioning Void Shields at the time of demise.

Similarly, the apparent lack of effectiveness of assaults, just doesn't ring as true. Still can't roll above a 3 on resolution, and my opponent's ability to make saves (8 hits, 3MW on Termies, all saved, 4 hits on Land Speeders, all saved) skews perception a little.

I'm still convinced that Knight formations aren't as fragile as they seem, though my last two games seemed to trend that way.

Morgan Vening
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Tue Jul 20, 2010 1:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: [BR Lite] Knightworld 1.1 vs Apocrypha
In playtesting new lists, it's always best to test them against an established list, IMO.
Author:  frogbear [ Tue Jul 20, 2010 1:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: [BR Lite] Knightworld 1.1 vs Apocrypha
Evil and Chaos wrote:
In playtesting new lists, it's always best to test them against an established list, IMO.


Problem is, an opponent has to want to play an 'established list'.
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Tue Jul 20, 2010 1:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: [BR Lite] Knightworld 1.1 vs Apocrypha
Playtesting is not about "playing", it's about testing. If you're less interested in testing the balance & viability of the list in question, and just want to have a fun game, then feel free to play two experimental lists against each other.
Author:  Morgan Vening [ Tue Jul 20, 2010 1:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: [BR Lite] Knightworld 1.1 vs Apocrypha
Evil and Chaos wrote:
In playtesting new lists, it's always best to test them against an established list, IMO.

It wasn't a huge deviation from a standard core Marine list.

2 x Land Speeders w Librarians
2 x Terminators w Chaplains
1 x Terminator w Supreme (BTS)
4 x Dreadnought Formations
4 x Thunderbolts

With the exception of the Dreadnoughts, it's core Marine. And given the Dreads were the only thing I was able to work against effectively, I don't think it skewed anything.

Morgan Vening
Author:  frogbear [ Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: [BR Lite] Knightworld 1.1 vs Apocrypha
Evil and Chaos wrote:
Playtesting is not about "playing", it's about testing. If you're less interested in testing the balance & viability of the list in question, and just want to have a fun game, then feel free to play two experimental lists against each other.


Surely you are not stating that 'experimental lists' are balanced?

Yes they are all we have, but I think we are far from stating that they are balanced. We have upteen threads out there stating otherwise.

So testing units can be done against may other lists IMO as it is the unit effectiveness that you are judging rather than the outcome of a game. Not trying to make an issue of this, just tired of people 'beating the same drum' when we really need look beyond GW dogma.
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: [BR Lite] Knightworld 1.1 vs Apocrypha
Quote:
Surely you are not stating that 'experimental lists' are balanced?

I think you mean "established", not experimental.

And just because we moan about aspects of them ad-nauseam, that doesn't mean that they're not pretty well balanced overall.


And it's not GW dogma to test lists in the manner I suggest, it's just sensible to test experimental lists against known quantities (Established lists).

Testing two experimental lists against each other will only give you an idea of their balance relative to each other, not to the rest of Epic.
Author:  Dobbsy [ Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: [BR Lite] Knightworld 1.1 vs Apocrypha
I'm curious, does anyone just "test' using no dice? i.e use the statistical probabilities instead? I always figured that would be much more accurate a way to test something given it's 100% no luck and you always get the correct result - I think...
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: [BR Lite] Knightworld 1.1 vs Apocrypha
Dobbsy wrote:
I'm curious, does anyone just "test' using no dice? i.e use the statistical probabilities instead? I always figured that would be much more accurate a way to test something given it's 100% no luck and you always get the correct result - I think...

Not as such, but when in "playtest mode" we will re-roll noticably atypical dice rolls.
Author:  frogbear [ Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: [BR Lite] Knightworld 1.1 vs Apocrypha
Dobbsy wrote:
I'm curious, does anyone just "test' using no dice? i.e use the statistical probabilities instead? I always figured that would be much more accurate a way to test something given it's 100% no luck and you always get the correct result - I think...


Nothing is better than playtests.

Let me use sport as an example. You can use mathematics to state what it should be and how it should work. How it is actually done in practice however is usually different as there are factors that are not taken into account.

Theory and stats have a definite place. Playtests are King IMO.
Author:  clausewitz [ Tue Jul 20, 2010 5:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: [BR Lite] Knightworld 1.1 vs Apocrypha
I am guessing that the large number of TBolt formations was what allowed your opponent to punish your broken formations?

Also with every other SM formation having MW attacks (unusual for marines) the RA of your knights is "less" apparent in effect.

I would say that it wasn't so much that your opponent was playing an experimental list, more that it was an unusually skewed SM army. Especially as all the actual units the SMs used were using "established" stats.

Can you post what list the Knights used?
Author:  dptdexys [ Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: [BR Lite] Knightworld 1.1 vs Apocrypha
I agree with E@C, for playtesting and the chance to show imbalances in lists, it's best having experimental v. established lists. Then any imbalances in the experimental list will show up better if you know the opposition is balanced.

That doesn't mean experimental v. experimental list games aren't useful.

The problem for me is when you look at 2 lists in playtest games. In this game the Marine one, if it was built using the codex list, would cost at least 3150
2 Land speeders + Librarians 500
2 Terminators + Chaplain 800
Terminators + Supreme Commander 450
4 T/bolt Formations 600
This comes to 2350 but then there's the 4 Dreadnaught formations these would be at least 200 points each, they may even be worth up to 250 each.

that makes the list at least 3150 maybe up to 3350.

If you then take the Knight list (not shown) and find the formations are slightly over costed.

Then a 3000 point Knight list may, theoretically, only be worth 2750 and you have a game with upwards of 500 points difference between the 2 armies and that is always going to feel wrong for one of the lists.

Also if both lists are overcosted similar,or both are undercosted similar,then a game between them may feel balanced but not show up problems that would crop up in games against an established list.
Author:  Simulated Knave [ Tue Jul 20, 2010 10:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: [BR Lite] Knightworld 1.1 vs Apocrypha
Quote:
The problem for me is when you look at 2 lists in playtest games. In this game the Marine one, if it was built using the codex list, would cost at least 3150
2 Land speeders + Librarians 500
2 Terminators + Chaplain 800
Terminators + Supreme Commander 450
4 T/bolt Formations 600
This comes to 2350 but then there's the 4 Dreadnaught formations these would be at least 200 points each, they may even be worth up to 250 each.


Er...the only thing the formations he mentions in that list can do that the Codex list cannot is not take Teleport for 50 points. Everything else is pretty much the same (with the possible exception of Land Speeder Tempests and the obvious exception of the Dreadnought formation existing).

I would assume that none of the Terminators teleported, thus saving him 150 points and bringing the list to an even 3000.

I would note that Morgan doesn't feel his experience was skewed due to imbalances in the AoS. Indeed, he has argued elsewhere that Terminators are still overcosted at 300 without Teleport.

Quote:
Also if both lists are overcosted similar,or both are undercosted similar,then a game between them may feel balanced but not show up problems that would crop up in games against an established list.


Yes. Which is why playtesting will try and encompass a variety of lists and units.

Me, I'd say the opportunity to show up flaws in two experimental lists at once balances out the problem you mention. So long as you do eventually play against some established lists, anyway.
Author:  frogbear [ Tue Jul 20, 2010 10:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: [BR Lite] Knightworld 1.1 vs Apocrypha
If we waited for experimental lists to merely be judged against 'established' lists, development on new lists would be doubled.

The fact that experimental lists are played and reported on this site would show that:

a. People like playing the lists that GW forgot or
b. People are bored with established lists and the lack of development on them

If the balance of Epic:A was changed to the most recent experimental lists (that had consistent support from an AC), calling the shots on what was balanced, I would not have a problem with that at all.

Alas, I digress the thread....
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Tue Jul 20, 2010 11:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: [BR Lite] Knightworld 1.1 vs Apocrypha
frogbear wrote:
b. People are bored with established lists and the lack of development on them

Established lists don't need any more development. Or not a great deal, at any rate.

Death Korps of Krieg is an example of an established list, for example. Or AMTL. Or Dark Eldar, or Necrons. All of those are known quantities which have known weaknesses and strengths, and so a battle report against each will be easier to draw conclusions from.

Picking two of the most highly experimental lists to test against each other will undoubtedly be fun... but it won't be carrying out strict stress-testing of either list.

Quote:
If the balance of Epic:A was changed to the most recent experimental lists (that had consistent support from an AC), calling the shots on what was balanced, I would not have a problem with that at all.


dptdexys wrote:
Also if both lists are overcosted similar,or both are undercosted similar,then a game between them may feel balanced but not show up problems that would crop up in games against an established list.

This is known as "Swordwind Syndrome", and it took several years to fix! ;D

This is not "GW dogma", this is a playtesting protocol developed by the community after all 3 Swordwind lists came out a little too good.
Page 1 of 4 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/