| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
| | Author | Messages | |
elder_basilisk
Sergeant
410 Posts
    
 | | 03/25/2006 2:37 AM |
| One term that's bandied about quite a bit is "tier 1." We usually talk about it in terms of warbands rather than minis (though some people are talking about minis with it too). As I can tell, a tier 1 warband is supposed to be able to win reliably against a wide range of foes. In contrast, a tier 2 or spoiler band has a strong advantage against some tier 1 bands but is at a significant disadvantage against others--that disadvantage is what makes it tier 2.
More recently, however, there has been more discussion of tournament winning bands using the rock/paper/scissors analogy. Gith monks beat CE Quad (at least prewardrummer), helmed horrors beat gith monks, marut+coatl beats helmed horrors, CE quad beats marut coatl (at least pre-bodyguard).
That raises the question: how many bad matchups can a band have and still be tier 1? And how important is it that the bands that are bad matchups be considered tier 1 themselves? If, for instance, we want to know if dual hill giant barbarians are tier 1 and stipulate that it has a bad matchup against snake eyes, how important is it that snake eyes is not generally thought to be tier 1 anymore? And is that dependent on the local metagame (no-one around here plays LE Duergar champs bands or gith monks, so snake-eyes doesn't have as many bad matchups and is therefore tier 1) or is it independant of the metagame? | |
| |
|
XAos
Underboss
2357 Posts
London
| | 03/25/2006 8:06 AM |
| The term "Rock,paper,scissors". is a way to describe a game which is dynamically inbalenced.
This would be equivalent to saying that all the top warbands are only tier-2. And there are no tier-1 warbands. The winner of a tournament where all warbands have bad matchups will effectivly be decided not by player skill but by luck in which warbands your matched against.[:p]
To answer the last question. A Tier-1 warband should have no (zero) bad matchups against other tier-1 warbands. i.e. The winner when 2 tier-1 warbands play each other should be the more skillfull player.
quote:
Originally posted by elder_basilisk
If, for instance, we want to know if dual hill giant barbarians are tier 1 and stipulate that it has a bad matchup against snake eyes, how important is it that snake eyes is not generally thought to be tier 1 anymore? And is that dependent on the local metagame (no-one around here plays LE Duergar champs bands or gith monks, so snake-eyes doesn't have as many bad matchups and is therefore tier 1) or is it independant of the metagame?
If "Snakes eyes" is itself only tier-2 (or lower). Then in a swiss tournament, it will probably loose it's first match. If your a good player using a tier-1 warband, you expect to win the first match. Hence you might never play against the "snakes eyes" warband. So unless your unlucky enough to get drawn against it on round 1, you might risk gambling on the theoretical bad match up. If snakes is itself tier-1, then the odds of playing against it in 2nd & subsequent rounds of a tournament are too high. And specifically by the definition of the term "tier-1" the HGB warband would not be "tier-1".
Ignore the local metagame, if local players want to use known inferior warbands, then a tier-1 warband should be able to beat them.
Are dual hill giant barbarians tier-1.? Don't go by what was tier-1 in the previous expansion. Thats a usefull starting point for any analysis but could be obsolete.
Calculate the cost-effectiveness of the hill giants V's every other unit that might be tier-1. If it's equal or better then they probably are tier-1. If the cost-effectiveness is lower then forget the hill giant they arn't tier-1.
If the maths say it might be tier-1, you still need to do some testing. Theory is wonderfull, but there used to be this theory that bumblebess can't fly. Which didn't stop the bumble bees.[:D]
| |
Don't worry about the current metagame. It doesn't matter if it's ugly, bad, or the best ever. In 2 years time, set rotation will ban everything. | |
|
John05
Warrior
246 Posts
| | 03/25/2006 11:22 AM |
| I think you are vastly underestimating HGBs, Xaos.
What makes you think they belong to "inferior warbands"?
| |
| |
| 
Vrecknidj
Warlord
9936 Posts
United States
| | 03/25/2006 12:42 PM |
| (Un)fortunately, sets come out relatively frequently and maps come out relatively frequently. This keeps the game dynamic and prevents any particular bands or pieces from being dominant forever.
If you were to go through the big Constructed tournaments over the past couple of years and look at the pieces that made it into the top 8 again and again, you'd have a good sense of what a tier-1 piece looks like. Then again, I'd wager that, over time, few pieces continue to remain in this category (how many Orc Champs were at GenCon's top 8 last year?)
In a big event (64+ players), there will be quite a few players who have 2 losses and are very good players, with very good bands. The tier-1 bands might fall mostly into the "two or fewer losses out of seven games" category. But, there will also probably be a few tier-2 bands that made it that far (i.e. 5-2) through favorable matchups and very effective playing.
It's hard to argue with the view that a band that goes 6-1 at a big event isn't tier-1. And, one loss out of seven matches still has a 14% loss rate. Going, say, 6-2 at an 8-match event is a loss rate of 25%, but it's stlil darn good.
So, maybe a loss rate of less than, say 17%, is tier-1.
??
Dave | |
Knowledge Arcana editor issues 5-9, Phoenix Lore Magazine editor, assistant editor for Rite Publishing;
My Trade Thread and My Reference Thread; Winner of WBC IV, IX and XIII; Rule #0: bshugg is always right! | |
|
elder_basilisk
Sergeant
410 Posts
| | 03/25/2006 1:34 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by XAos
To answer the last question. A Tier-1 warband should have no (zero) bad matchups against other tier-1 warbands. i.e. The winner when 2 tier-1 warbands play each other should be the more skillfull player.
This sounds nice in theory, but it depends upon a rather vague definition of "bad matchup." Gith monks, for instance, are more effective against triple frenzy than against marut+coatl and are more effective against marut+coatl than against helmed horrors. How bad does a matchup have to be in order to qualify as a "bad matchup" in this sense?
It seems like an absurd assertion to maintain that ANY warband will have equal chances against all comers, even if all comers are selected from the nebulous realm of "tier 1." It's just not possible. What is possible is to have some matchups that are better than others, and some that are worse than others but none that are near auto-loss. If one assumes equal skill and luck, I expect you'll see a few of 40/60 matchups and that's probably still acceptable for tier 1 as long as they are balanced by a similar number of 60/40 matchups. The question is whether you could have a single 35/65 matchup. Or maybe a 30/70 matchup.
quote:
If "Snakes eyes" is itself only tier-2 (or lower). Then in a swiss tournament, it will probably loose it's first match. If your a good player using a tier-1 warband, you expect to win the first match. Hence you might never play against the "snakes eyes" warband. So unless your unlucky enough to get drawn against it on round 1, you might risk gambling on the theoretical bad match up. If snakes is itself tier-1, then the odds of playing against it in 2nd & subsequent rounds of a tournament are too high.
This itself seems to beg the question of what is tier 1. In order to know what is tier 1, you need to know what else is tier 1. At this point, tier 1ness seems like it's boiling down to a knowledge of the local or national metagame. | |
| |
|
Longbow
Warrior
236 Posts
| | 03/25/2006 1:58 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by John05
I think you are vastly underestimating HGBs, Xaos.
What makes you think they belong to "inferior warbands"?
Inferior the Hill Giant Barbarian is not. He may have a "low" save as a weakness (12 with Wardrummer) and has no immunities like a construct but the speed, damage and hitpoints are top notch (IMO). Time will tell if he´s a "true" tier-one mini. | |
German championship 12.05.07 in Berlin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Want to play DDM in Berlin, Germany? http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/dndminisberlin/ | |
|
Ack
Underboss
1476 Posts
| | 03/25/2006 2:08 PM |
| Without turning this into "what models are good" discussion, lets just talk about what tier 1 means.
When I ask major players "what band do you think can win 80% of its matches 60% of the time".. I dont get alot of "these 3 bands can do that!". Its alot more "well, depending on the local meta, this band might have good matchups, unless someone brings such and such.. then you will need to see this"
Tier 1 is whatever can finish in the top 8 in a big tournament, IMO. It will change from location to location and tourney to tourney to some degree. A "true" list of Tier 1 can only be found at the GenCon championships in my opinion.. | |
Minis... Serious Business
Completed Trades (18 ) | Pending Trades (0)
Ebay seller to Avoid –Fantasy_Quest_Dist
| |
|
Dagni
Sergeant
870 Posts
| | 03/25/2006 3:41 PM |
| From seeing tier one used a lot on these message boards, I'd say that the common meaning, when referring to a band that's 'tier one', is that it's a popular band that's very strong, with few bad matchups. It belongs to a very small number of bands that one can expect to see at a tournament. A good definition of tier one, as commonly used, would be "tournament worthy".
Same thing with minis, often a mini is called a tier one mini, or labeled as NOT a tier one mini. Tier one in this context is again used to mean tournament worthy.
Tier two bands and spoiler bands are two different things. Spoiler bands are bands that aren't tier one, aren't tournament worthy, because of bad, even terrible matchups. Since anything tier one is tier two, that makes them tier two, but most tier two bands aren't spoiler bands. Most tier two bands are bands that simply don't use the best minis. Most tier two bands are slightly worse almost across the board versus tier one bands. Spoiler bands, by contrast, not only generally use tier one minis, but almost the entire band might well be copies of just ONE tier one mini. This leads to a powerful band that can have bad matchups as it's not well rounded.
To answer you question a bit more directly, elder_basilisk, as to how many bad matchups a band can have and still be tier one, it simply has to be few enough that the band might be the best choice for a tournament. In other words, there's no way to quantify it, because it's a subjective label. Also, if every band in the game has 3 or more bad matchups, then 3 bad matchups is good. If however, a band can be found that has no bad matchups, then people will forsake the bands with 3 bad matchups very quickly.
When warband-building, or choosing a warband to play, I don't use the above label for tier one at all. I use the definition that is the first definition I saw. No bad matchups. I shade the definition in two ways; no really bad matchups, unless these matchups are only a tiny part of the expected metagame, and a bit weak matchups can be okay, as long as they're still very winnable, and not the biggest piece of the expected metagame.
Even there, of course a band that fulfills the definition without the exceptions I'll allow is even better.
-----
Allow me to be even more specific. In last year's championship, the goal was not to decide between various tier one bands. Sure, there were various bands that fit the common definition of 'tier one', but none of them fit my definition. So I, like dozens of other players, struggled to playtest, tweak, and thus find a tier one band.
Tweaking a band is obviously intended to shore up a good band's weakneses, and thus make it tier one. Why playtest, though? What on paper looks to be a bad, favorable, or even matchup often isn't. So finding a band without bad matchups involves playtesting, either to see if supposedly bad matchups aren't, or to find if supposedly even matchups are bad.
So quick highlights of my testing. Archmage bands weren't tier one. They had slightly bad matchups against CE. If CE weren't going to be the main expected metagame (about 50%), that would've been okay, perhaps. As it was, not good enough. 4 Justice Archon bands couldn't handle things like Chraals (also probably not LSD, Archmage, and perhaps more). One Couatl wasn't enough, and even against CE the band seemed weaker than it should've been on paper. Definitely not tier one.
Standard CE wasn't tier one. Bad matchups against Justice Archons, though not as bad as I expected against most versions of JA (but I knew about Snake Eyes, so I knew 2 players would have a good version vs CE). And a supposedly even matchup versus Chraals looked better and better for the Chraals the more I played it - even with 3 Red Sam bands! Plus the Red Sam band is vulnerable to CE bands that didn't adjust to shore up weaknesses. Since 50% of the bands would be CE, every adjustment to shore up weakness meant that the band was a little bit worse vs the mirror match. So at best a 50/50 matchup against most of the field. Worse, the point of having no bad matchups is consistancy, and the CE bands didn't have consistancy. Whether versus JAs, Chraals, or CE, the games are all very swingy. So CE wasn't tier one. Many people saw some of these same issues, but settled for them anyway, because they hadn't found a better choice. They didn't find ANY tier one bands.
I however, did find a tier one band. After testing, I found that supposedly bad matchups for 3 Chraals almost without exception were totally winnable games against bands that weren't likely to show up in the meatagame, and that the more common 'bad matchups' were actually even or better matchups. Against Red Sams, I found that the Chraals seemed to have quite a bit of an edge. There were still totally terrible matchups, like facing Ghaele Eladrin, but that wasn't a part of the metagame at all.
- Dagni | |
Proud member of the GRUUMSH fan club! | |
|
Wrackspawn
ChristopherGroves
Warlord
6093 Posts
| | 03/25/2006 11:19 PM |
| The short version is that a tier-one band in my opinion gives you a good-enough chance to win against the expected other bands in the field, specifically those of the top players and in the final rounds of a tournament.
You can't build your band against EVERYTHING as you'll not know what to expect. In a large event, there can be quite a variety of odd bands show up for which you simply can't plan. Every band has some sort of bad matchup, but really how often can you expect to face four Wizard Tacticians?
Instead, you select a band that will give you as good a chance as possible against the expected top-half. The bands that have the best chance against these are the tier-one warbands ... and you can validate this via testing or the ultimate win-or-do-well-in-the-tournament test. | |
Triangle DDM Skirmish Group | My Email | 45-ish trades and counting | Stuff for Trade
* * * Show your brother some love and click here * * * | |
|
Vrecknidj
Warlord
9936 Posts
United States
| | 03/26/2006 12:06 AM |
| (Un)fortunately, sets come out relatively frequently and maps come out relatively frequently. This keeps the game dynamic and prevents any particular bands or pieces from being dominant forever.
If you were to go through the big Constructed tournaments over the past couple of years and look at the pieces that made it into the top 8 again and again, you'd have a good sense of what a tier-1 piece looks like. Then again, I'd wager that, over time, few pieces continue to remain in this category (how many Orc Champs were at GenCon's top 8 last year?)
In a big event (64+ players), there will be quite a few players who have 2 losses and are very good players, with very good bands. The tier-1 bands might fall mostly into the "two or fewer losses out of seven games" category. But, there will also probably be a few tier-2 bands that made it that far (i.e. 5-2) through favorable matchups and very effective playing.
It's hard to argue with the view that a band that goes 6-1 at a big event isn't tier-1. And, one loss out of seven matches still has a 14% loss rate. Going, say, 6-2 at an 8-match event is a loss rate of 25%, but it's stlil darn good.
So, maybe a loss rate of less than, say 17%, is tier-1.
??
Dave | |
Knowledge Arcana editor issues 5-9, Phoenix Lore Magazine editor, assistant editor for Rite Publishing;
My Trade Thread and My Reference Thread; Winner of WBC IV, IX and XIII; Rule #0: bshugg is always right! | |
|
LeClaire
Warrior
225 Posts
| | 03/26/2006 8:07 AM |
| (Un)fortunately Dave is suffering from an extreme case of lag. Just sit back and enjoy the silence. I'm sure he'll be back with his snappy repartee soon. [)]
Posted - 03/25/2006 : 12:42:30 PM
Posted - 03/26/2006 : 12:06:01 AM
Now I just hope that it doesn't happen to me! [:I]
Tier 1? The term gets bandied about too loosely nowadays, just like ‘metagame’. The classic definition, as I recall it, was a band that stood a 50-50 chance against any of the other common Tier 1 bands. That’s a good place to start. Frankly with so many options available nowadays, it’s almost impossible to try and really quantify it. For myself I follow these simple steps:
1) Get an idea.
2) Choose some good, solid pieces for candidates and/or must haves.
3) Put together those that have some synergy (i.e. Lord Soth + Beholder = nasty). Optimally each piece is reasonable strong on it’s own, but together they’re more than the sum of their parts. Sympathetic resonance.
4) Fiddle. Use up the odd points. Cover off a weakness over reinforcing a strength.
5) Form a game plan for typical maps and match-ups. Can be very generic like, “What to do against a single big titan.”
6) Test.
7) Tweak.
8) Trash as I have the attention span of a gerbil and am easily… **runs off chasing a butterfly, giggling like a schoolgirl**
| |
It is I, LeClaire!
So we have to champion something? Alright, I pick the mighty Flumph! | |
|
elder_basilisk
Sergeant
410 Posts
| | 03/26/2006 1:50 PM |
| Sure. On the other hand, there are often lots of similar bands at any given large tournament that go 2-6 or 1-7. A loss rate at a tournament is not simply a function of a band. Rather, it's band+player+luck. Given two good players with solid bands, one of them is still going to lose.
Consequently, I don't we're talking about the same thing when you say a 17% loss rate and I'm talking about 60/40 matchups. You might say that any band that accumulates a 17% or lower loss rate at a tourney is tier 1, but that does not necessarily mean that simply because a band did not accumulate a good win/loss ratio, it is less than tier 1. My real question was more along the lines of "how bad a matchup do experienced players find acceptable and against what bands?" Obviously, you don't want any significantly bad matchups against the current hot bands, but you're not going to find a band that's got consistently favorable matchups against all of the tier 1 bands out there. So, you're going to have to live with matchups where you would say "as long as I play well and don't make any mistakes, I should be able to win if either I get lucky or my opponent makes a mistake, but otherwise I will lose." The question is how many (if any) matches where your opponent needs to make a mistake AND you need some unusual luck are acceptable or avoidable.
quote:
Originally posted by Vrecknidj
It's hard to argue with the view that a band that goes 6-1 at a big event isn't tier-1. And, one loss out of seven matches still has a 14% loss rate. Going, say, 6-2 at an 8-match event is a loss rate of 25%, but it's stlil darn good.
So, maybe a loss rate of less than, say 17%, is tier-1.
??
Dave
| |
| |
|
Zippy
Underboss
1984 Posts
Whitewater, WI
| | 03/26/2006 5:06 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Vrecknidj
(Un)fortunately, sets come out relatively frequently and maps come out relatively frequently. This keeps the game dynamic and prevents any particular bands or pieces from being dominant forever.
If you were to go through the big Constructed tournaments over the past couple of years and look at the pieces that made it into the top 8 again and again, you'd have a good sense of what a tier-1 piece looks like. Then again, I'd wager that, over time, few pieces continue to remain in this category (how many Orc Champs were at GenCon's top 8 last year?)
In a big event (64+ players), there will be quite a few players who have 2 losses and are very good players, with very good bands. The tier-1 bands might fall mostly into the "two or fewer losses out of seven games" category. But, there will also probably be a few tier-2 bands that made it that far (i.e. 5-2) through favorable matchups and very effective playing.
It's hard to argue with the view that a band that goes 6-1 at a big event isn't tier-1. And, one loss out of seven matches still has a 14% loss rate. Going, say, 6-2 at an 8-match event is a loss rate of 25%, but it's stlil darn good.
So, maybe a loss rate of less than, say 17%, is tier-1.
??
Dave
If a warband has 50% chance to win each match, what are the odds to win at least X matches of 7?
Win at Least - % Chance
0 - 100% (by entering you win zero or more matches [)])
1 - 99.2%
2 - 93.8%
3 - 77.3%
4 - 50.0%
5 - 22.7%
6 - 6.3%
7 - 0.8%
So for a band to be 50% among all other tourney bands, and to reach the W5/L2 or better mark is about 1 in 4.5 - how often would a top player with a Tier 1 band expect to hit W5/L2 or better? Is 50% average win rate enough to call a band Tier 1? | |
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those who don't.
Reference Thread, H/W List, Champion of the Catoblepas | |
|
JohnnyFive
Warrior
207 Posts
| | 03/26/2006 5:50 PM |
| If I'm not mistaken, I believe it was Fenris who said "Don't tell me what your warband can do, tell me what your warband will do."
Cost efficiency, win/loss ratio, et cetera are all means that lead to a common end- mitigating the random element in a game where the unknown is an ever-present factor. Thus, IMHO, Tier-1 warbands (and pieces) are those which are best able to perform consistently well, regardless of circumstances. As such, the winner of a match between two Tier-1 warbands will generally go to the player with the most skill, unless two players are close to each other in skill, in which case "luck" becomes a significant factor.
That's not to say that Tier-1 warbands or pieces will always perform well in every matchup- however, over an extended period of evaluation, these warbands will remain generally consistent.
Case in point: The Dromite Wilder. Who doesn't like doing 40 damage to every creature within 4 squares? So why isn't he considered Tier 1? The answer, of course, is the fact that that 40 damage isn't reliable. You could end up doing 20 damage, 10 damage, or even no damage, which is hardly something that would do well in a big-time competition. Compare that to, say, the Helmed Horror's high attack bonus, which allows it to provide good, consistent damage output in addition to its survivability, is what makes it Tier-1.
But hey, that's just my opinion. [:D] | |
Champion of the Elf Duskblade | |
|
sienar
Sergeant
635 Posts
| | 03/27/2006 11:15 AM |
| I find it a bit difficult to quantify. There are enough concepts out there that can be run, it is hard to have a warband that has 'no bad matchups'. What you need to look at is 'minimizing unfavorable matchups against expected opposition while maximizing favorable matchups', or MUMAEOWMFM. [:D]
There is no warband with no bad matchups. There had better not be, or we really will be playing chess with dice. (If there was a warband with no bad matchups, it would be silly not to run it, and then we'd all be playing the same warband).
You have to discount spoiler bands if you are to try and do a win % analysis. I have a hard time making a to quantify a win %, but if I would it would be over 50% against other 'Tier 1' bands and, say, 75% against 'Tier 2'.
Also, consider, if all players in a tournament are playing 'Tier 1' bands, and all are within the same skill range, then a 'Tier 1' band will have won no games. Does that make that warband no longer Tier 1? I don't think so.
Another thing to consider is that just because a band is 'Tier 1', that does not mean everybody can win with it. Players have play styles, warbands have play style needs. If you don't run a warband within your own play style, you are going to reduce your chance of winning.
Say it with me:
MUMAEOWMFM | |
[http://www.hordelings.com/frontend/profiles/profile.php?user_id=22] | |
|
Zippy
Underboss
1984 Posts
Whitewater, WI
| | 03/27/2006 8:06 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by sienar
MUMAEOWMFM
I think I broke my tongue [xx(] | |
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those who don't.
Reference Thread, H/W List, Champion of the Catoblepas | |
|
XAos
Underboss
2357 Posts
London
| | 03/28/2006 4:54 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by elder_basilisk
This sounds nice in theory, but it depends upon a rather vague definition of "bad matchup."
The term "Bad machup" is very well defined. e.g. Gyth monks have a bad matchup against helmed horrors.
quote:
Gith monks, for instance, are more effective against triple frenzy than against marut+coatl and are more effective against marut+coatl than against helmed horrors. How bad does a matchup have to be in order to qualify as a "bad matchup" in this sense?
It has to be against a tier-1 warband. If a warband has any/one bad-matchup against a tier-1 warband, then it's tier-2 (at best).
quote:
It seems like an absurd assertion to maintain that ANY warband will have equal chances against all comers,
Why absurd...? Surely thats the whole point of WotC doing playtesting before they decide the points cost on the figures. Now if WotC used some arbitary spreadsheet to set the points cost & then ignore playtesting results you could use a word like "absurd" to describe the game balence. But all the evidence is that WotC & the playtesters put a lot of effort into game balence. Is it so absurd to think that they get it correct for a significant number of the figures.?
quote:
even if all comers are selected from the nebulous realm of "tier 1." It's just not possible.
"Not possible" really, "Wow".!!!
Since my post that your responsing to was discusaing mathematical analysis of the probabilities. Can I assume you mean "not possible" in the strict mathematical sense ?
i.e are you saying the incalculable situations in chaos theory apply.? Care to explain your mathematics here.[?]
I would love to see even an out-line, of how chaos-theory applies to an analysis of the ddm probabilities...ΖD]
Failing that I'll continue to assume it is possible.[:)]
| |
Don't worry about the current metagame. It doesn't matter if it's ugly, bad, or the best ever. In 2 years time, set rotation will ban everything. | |
|
Low Key
Underboss
1231 Posts
| | 03/28/2006 6:34 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by sienar
Say it with me:
MUMAEOWMFM
Thats just evil. [B)] | |
Champion of the Sarrukh | |
|
sienar
Sergeant
635 Posts
| | 03/28/2006 9:54 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Zippy
quote:
Originally posted by sienar
MUMAEOWMFM
I think I broke my tongue [xx(]
Difficult to say, maybe. I'd share with you how to, but the elder gods would get very put out if I did. [}:)]
Do you guys like the concept? Or am I off my rocker? I just have a hard time saying the absulute statement: 'if a warband has a single bad match-up against another tier 1 band, it can't be tier 1'.
Let's say we have 20 Tier 1 bands. I just don't see how it is possible all 20 have non-bad match-ups against all 19 other bands, hence 'MUMAEOWMFM'. | |
[http://www.hordelings.com/frontend/profiles/profile.php?user_id=22] | |
|
Wrackspawn
ChristopherGroves
Warlord
6093 Posts
| |
sienar
Sergeant
635 Posts
| | 03/28/2006 10:16 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by ChristopherGroves
No, you're spot on. It's why I made the choice to run the LSD at Gencon - I was anticipating how the matchups would play out and what I'd expect to see. I had to exclude the fact that I might see an Ulmo, Aramil band ... I mean, how many folks were playing? What were the odds I'd bounce into one?
Looking into my crystal ball... I'd go with 1:1 [:D]
To be fair, Ulmo/Aramil was certainly not a Tier 1 band. Gimmicky, it was. It caught most people off guard. They hadn't planned to face and didn't know how. | |
[http://www.hordelings.com/frontend/profiles/profile.php?user_id=22] | |
|
elder_basilisk
Sergeant
410 Posts
| | 03/28/2006 10:20 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by XAos
quote:
It seems like an absurd assertion to maintain that ANY warband will have equal chances against all comers,
Why absurd...? Surely thats the whole point of WotC doing playtesting before they decide the points cost on the figures. Now if WotC used some arbitary spreadsheet to set the points cost & then ignore playtesting results you could use a word like "absurd" to describe the game balence. But all the evidence is that WotC & the playtesters put a lot of effort into game balence. Is it so absurd to think that they get it correct for a significant number of the figures.?
Because it's not just about point cost. As soon as you stop talking in vague terms and start talking about actual warbands, your variables all become set. Your attack is X and your damage Y on figures A, B, and C. You have Z hit points and Q saves.
Any given warband that you face will be similarly defined. And a part of that definition includes factors like wether or not they can kill your warforged scout on turn 1 on the broken demongate map. If they can, it's disadvantageous for you to place it on the forward assault area. If they can't, it is advantageous for you to do so. If your warband has every key figure with 65 hit points, then they take two hits to MC and 3 to kill from most figures.... but not from Hill Giant Barbarians who MC in one hit and kill in two hits. All of those factors will factor into your odds of winning and unless some warband is so much better than all the other possible ones that it doesn't matter whether it's facing AC 11 eyes of gruumsch and AC 10 frenzied beserkers or AC 24 war trolls and AC 25 gith monks and maruts, then it will not have equal chances against all possible warbands. Heck, marut+7 sacred watchers will be a lot more trouble for an LE band without a Zakya Rakshasa than for one with a zakya rakshasa.
Every figure in the game could be perfectly costed and any tier 1 warband (if there is such a thing) would still have different chances against nearly any two warbands selected at random. That's implicit in the very concept of a spoiler band. (Are you saying that there is no such thing as a spoiler band?) | |
| |
|
| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
| |
ActiveForums 3.7 | You must be signed in to participate in the
games. |