Jump to content
Angry Ewok

Need Kill Point Missions to Counter Spreadsheet MSU

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Angry Ewok said:

The OP was aimed at

1. pointing out the really cookie cutter meta that is being played, (max long range efficient cores, plus snipers) and challenge the community to do better than simply spamming this easy button in order to win, ( we all can crunch the numbers and see why its good (your not special and smarter than everyone else bc you bought 3 boxes of snipers)

2. to hopefully get people to consider a kill point oriented mission option or an alternate means of scoring that diminishes the overwhelming advantage MSU style lists have in a purely objective based mission.  there need to be other missions in the deck that they must plan to counter, hopefully discouraging the mono build style we are seeing

3. point out that very few if any lists in the top 8 of LVO, LCQ, or Adepticon HC did not have at least 1, if not 2-3 Sniper teams regardless of faction,   I chaff hard against a unit that is that ubiquitous across both factions,  people should not feel like they have to play with at least 2 snipers or they are starting behind, but the results we are seeing bears that out repeatedly.  We should not have to buy multiple copies of no-core units to be competitive.   Hopefully the shore troopers have a range 4+ indirect fire weapon to counter this massively disproportionate use of a single non-core unit option. 

#SniperTeamsAreTheFlotillasofLegion

PS we hate flotilla spam for the same reason

 

Go read Orks response about halfway up the page, then, watch some of the streams (especially the High Command ones) to get an idea of what competitive legion is actually like. 

Thank your our lucky stars we didn’t all have to run the literal exact same list (Specter cell in IA). I’m sorry, but with how few units we have in the game, there’s going to be repetition. At least the 8 lists aren’t actually copies of each other like what I saw next to us at the IA Worlds. 

I also don’t agree with the discredit this post does to the 6 months of practice I put in with my list to earn a spot at worlds. I didn’t run snipers because of a spread sheet, I ran them because they’re an efficient tool that did the job I needed them to do (which was mostly activate hunter on Boba Fett!). They had very little to do with my game plan. 

Lastly, you don’t have to buy multiple non cores to be competitive. The core units that come in the starter set are still going strong, and may early units and upgrades are still valid. Instead, I challenge you to be like Lupo who saw the sniper meta and directly challenged it, and engineered a solution that also earned him a spot at Worlds. Be the change you’d like to see in Legion - and hold on tight, because this game is changing all the time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, TalkPolite said:

Lastly, you don’t have to buy multiple non cores to be competitive.

Top 8 at Adepticon: of the 8 top list, 5 had 3 Snipers, the other 3 lists had 2 Sniper teams each. 

Top 6 at LVO did see one list with a single Sniper team in it (augmented by naked Stormtroopers,) Between the 6 lists there were 14 sniper teams... 

14 list => 1 list did not include multiple sniper teams

The data pretty directly refutes your statement.  When a non-mandatory unit is that prolific across both factions of the game at the highest levels of play it is a massive issue

My concern is that activation count is more important than tactical usefulness in list design right now in legion... Snipers are the cheapest non core option available so they are spammed, they may not be broken but high activation count is...

To my original point, I think we need mission changes to reduce the activation arms race so we can quite counting activations so much and actually take units on their merits not simply their point costs. 

The design space for a game with only objective based win conditions is limited and results in the uniform formula for success we see now in the list mentioned above.

 

Edited by Angry Ewok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I support new missions, but only for more diversity in gameplay.

Frankly, if you don’t like the meta, do something that counters it well. I’ve had reasonable luck locally using an ATST to cripple or delete units.

I am sure a max activation army in expert hands can beat me....but so can any expert. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I did run both events, so I am pretty familiar with the army compositions and whatnot :) 

Redundancy is the key to victory in a competitive game. You want multiple tools to do the same job, incase you lose something important early (hence the reason why I ran two snows, so I’d still have that hammer if one was hit early). Not to mention, running multiple of the same rank that is not corps gives you a tighter order pool. Those two things have nothing to do with objectives and everything to do with good game technique. 

This game is great because it’s not kill points. Because so many times have my casualties been heavier than my opponent, but I’ve still won the game. It gives legion a unique flavor that is different than most. I’d hate for the game to lose that. 

That being said, I would absolutely love more battle cards. It would help encourage variety through cards that maybe favor vehicles, emplacements, negatively effect troopers, etc. Let’s hope more of those are being worked on, maybe a priority supplies II will come out during clone wars? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, TalkPolite said:

Redundancy is the key to victory in a competitive game. You want multiple tools to do the same job, incase you lose something important early (hence the reason why I ran two snows, so I’d still have that hammer if one was hit early). Not to mention, running multiple of the same rank that is not corps gives you a tighter order pool. Those two things have nothing to do with objectives and everything to do with good game technique. 

So much this. My key phrase when list building is "Two is one and one is none." In Bolt Action, if I choose to include anti-vehicle elements in a list, I make sure to take at least two. That way, if one of my anti-vehicle units is removed or otherwise rendered ineffective, I likely still have something on the board that can deal with vehicles. 

In Legion, if I'm going to include one short range/melee unit (Wookies, Luke, Fleet Troopers, fire chicken, etc) I'll include at least one more. One unit can be easily focused down, but the spare splits your opponent's focus. 

EDIT: And there are times where I have issued certain order tokens so I end up with almost complete control of my activations by only having Corps and Commander tokens left in the bag. 

Edited by Caimheul1313

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, TalkPolite said:

This game is great because it’s not kill points. Because so many times have my casualties been heavier than my opponent, but I’ve still won the game. It gives legion a unique flavor that is different than most. I’d hate for the game to lose that. 

Coming from a Middle-Earth SBG background where objectives are similarly more important than kill points, I absolutely love that Legion takes a similar approach. 

More mission cards would be fun to see, as would a narrative campaign, but I'm sure we'll see that with time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ScummyRebel said:

I support new missions, but only for more diversity in gameplay.

Frankly, if you don’t like the meta, do something that counters it well. I’ve had reasonable luck locally using an ATST to cripple or delete units.

I am sure a max activation army in expert hands can beat me....but so can any expert. 

The problem with this logic is if you run a list that counters the meta, then that makes you weak against non-meta lists...

This is the typical pattern in these types (and card games (MTG, Hstone, etc). 

Tier 1 lists  >>>> everything except lists designed to beat them (Tier 2).

Tier 2 lists counter tier 1 lists, but lose to weaker Tier 3,4,5 lists.

Tier 3,4,5, etc lists. Beat up on eachother, beat tier 2 lists, but get demolished by Tier 1. 

 

You have a better shot at winning by taking a Tier 1 list (lists with high activation count). Yes, you could take a list that counters these lists, but that makes you weak to the rest of the field, so making the top 8 is less likely. 

I'd like to see new missions, a pass mechanic, and increased max points to around 1,000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, R3dReVenge said:

The problem with this logic is if you run a list that counters the meta, then that makes you weak against non-meta lists...

This is the typical pattern in these types (and card games (MTG, Hstone, etc). 

Tier 1 lists  >>>> everything except lists designed to beat them (Tier 2).

Tier 2 lists counter tier 1 lists, but lose to weaker Tier 3,4,5 lists.

Tier 3,4,5, etc lists. Beat up on eachother, beat tier 2 lists, but get demolished by Tier 1. 

 

You have a better shot at winning by taking a Tier 1 list (lists with high activation count). Yes, you could take a list that counters these lists, but that makes you weak to the rest of the field, so making the top 8 is less likely. 

I'd like to see new missions, a pass mechanic, and increased max points to around 1,000.

No list is good against everything, ever. It's not a flaw in logic, it's how it should be. If I run a list with no way of dealing with armor, like current rebel meta lists, then I should struggle with armor. If I run a small elite force, then I should be at risk of being overrun by armies with high activation counts.

Going to 1000 point armies will not fix the "staleness" of the current meta. You'll just see the same lists but with more support added in for rebels and a second commander for imperial forces. Changing the meta will require a better general purpose list to emerge, which hasn't happened yet. I encourage you to try and do so.

No one here will dispute more missions/deployments/conditions. As an Armada player I'm still on the fence about a pass, but I see the arguments for it.

Edited by thepopemobile100
autocorrect will end humanity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Angry Ewok said:

Top 8 at Adepticon: of the 8 top list, 5 had 3 Snipers, the other 3 lists had 2 Sniper teams each. 

Top 6 at LVO did see one list with a single Sniper team in it (augmented by naked Stormtroopers,) Between the 6 lists there were 14 sniper teams... 

14 list => 1 list did not include multiple sniper teams

The data pretty directly refutes your statement.  When a non-mandatory unit is that prolific across both factions of the game at the highest levels of play it is a massive issue

My concern is that activation count is more important than tactical usefulness in list design right now in legion... Snipers are the cheapest non core option available so they are spammed, they may not be broken but high activation count is...

To my original point, I think we need mission changes to reduce the activation arms race so we can quite counting activations so much and actually take units on their merits not simply their point costs. 

The design space for a game with only objective based win conditions is limited and results in the uniform formula for success we see now in the list mentioned above.

 

Counter-point: that data only demonstrates that sniper teams are liked by that group of players, not that they’re a dominant unit per se.

If you want to demonstrate that, you’d have to have control trials of the same players playing basically the same game with different setups, and not just one trial per setup per player, but hundreds.

As that’s not going to happen, there’s no result here that can be stated with ANY level of confidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thepopemobile100 said:

No list is good against everything, ever. It's not a flaw in logic, it's how it should be. If I run a list with no way of dealing with armor, like current rebel meta lists, then I should struggle with armor. If I run a small elite force, then I should be at risk of being overrun by armies with high activation counts.

Going to 1000 point armies will not fix the "staleness" of the current meta. You'll just see the same lists but with more support added in for rebels and a second commander for imperial forces. Changing the meta will require a better general purpose list to emerge, which hasn't happened yet. I encourage you to try and do so.

No one here will dispute more missions/deployments/conditions. As an Armada player I'm still on the fence about a pass, but I see the arguments for it.

This is true, but their will be lists that are BETTER (my point) against majority of the field, than sub-optimal lists. Why did we see high activation lists with multiple sniper teams dominate???? These lists are better against the field and have few weaknesses. 

In your example: You mention how not having a reliable counter to armor should make you struggle against armor. Yes, this is true! But, lists with armor fit into a lower tier. These lists can't compete that well in objective missions. Not to mention, they are a bit pricey and force you into taking certain choices (You won't see Vader/Sith comboed with an AT-ST). I think cheap, effective vehicles may help counter these meta lists, but right now, we don't have them.

Going to 1000 points is more of a preference. I don't know if it will fix the current stale meta, but it will allow for more interesting battles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, R3dReVenge said:

This is true, but their will be lists that are BETTER (my point) against majority of the field, than sub-optimal lists. Why did we see high activation lists with multiple sniper teams dominate???? These lists are better against the field and have few weaknesses. 

In your example: You mention how not having a reliable counter to armor should make you struggle against armor. Yes, this is true! But, lists with armor fit into a lower tier. These lists can't compete that well in objective missions. Not to mention, they are a bit pricey and force you into taking certain choices (You won't see Vader/Sith comboed with an AT-ST). I think cheap, effective vehicles may help counter these meta lists, but right now, we don't have them.

Going to 1000 points is more of a preference. I don't know if it will fix the current stale meta, but it will allow for more interesting battles.

When a meta develops and a list type becomes commonplace, then lists that counter it will develop. Bringing lists specifically designed to counter the meta is a good strategy even if they don't work well against other lists because the common lists will be weak to it. We see sniper teams all the time because there currently isn't much to deal with them beyond other snipers and a commander for each faction. That doesn't mean it isn't doable, and given your current attitude towards the situation it seems like you've given up trying to. You've discounted lists that can beat them as "lower tier", which is a mistake in itself to do.

Armor isn't in a bad spot, heavies are. FFG is trying to fix this, although I hate having to buy a new unit for an upgrade to fix an earlier unit. The Occupier and landspeeder look nasty, and pose a threat to the current meta. The generic pilot for the ST turns it into an even bigger meat grinder.

If you want an immediate solution, triple flamethrower RTs would decimate almost all the top 8 lists from Adepticon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, thepopemobile100 said:

If you want an immediate solution, triple flamethrower RTs would decimate almost all the top 8 lists from Adepticon.

I wouldn’t be so sure about that. The imperials would be fine (please run them against my 4 DLTs, Veers, Boba list!). I faced them many times gearing up for high command, so that one would be an easy W for me 9 times out of 10. 

Rebels have the Z6 crit machine and Luke, though I’ll admit Han lists might struggle! 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Derrault said:

As that’s not going to happen, there’s no result here that can be stated with ANY level of confidence.

I dunno, I feel pretty confident making claims about the “meta” up to this point. But that’s because I have Invader season 2 data, LVO, and two days of adepticon to work with. That’s almost 500 games worth of Data. 

That being said, it’s silly to make meta claims because the game changes every month. Most releases made their way into nationals, and like someone else said above, just because it wasn’t brought means it’s bad - that group may have just not tested it enough or brought it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, TalkPolite said:

I wouldn’t be so sure about that. The imperials would be fine (please run them against my 4 DLTs, Veers, Boba list!). I faced them many times gearing up for high command, so that one would be an easy W for me 9 times out of 10. 

Rebels have the Z6 crit machine and Luke, though I’ll admit Han lists might struggle! 

 

 

Your list was the one I was thinking of it not working on, I'll give you that.

Luke can still only be in one place at a time, and the Z6 is inconsistent. I expect it to do nothing when I use it so I'm pleasantly surprised when it ends up rolling 5 hits.

I run Han + Chewie a lot. Chewie actually does fairly well against armor with his impact, crit surge, and easy access to aims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, TalkPolite said:

I dunno, I feel pretty confident making claims about the “meta” up to this point. But that’s because I have Invader season 2 data, LVO, and two days of adepticon to work with. That’s almost 500 games worth of Data. 

That being said, it’s silly to make meta claims because the game changes every month. Most releases made their way into nationals, and like someone else said above, just because it wasn’t brought means it’s bad - that group may have just not tested it enough or brought it. 

I’m talking statistical confidence, which you do not have using a hodgepodge of information that doesn’t account for literally dozens of variables. 

Edited by Derrault
Stupid autocorrect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

On 4/19/2019 at 1:58 AM, Caimheul1313 said:

Also, it is VERY premature to call the meta stale in my opinion when two of the announced factions haven't even been released. 

My local meta hasn't change for a few waves. A few upgrades change here and there and maybe a unit swaps around after a release but otherwise game have felt the same for months. That is the definition of stale. Yes, new factions will change things but they aren't out yet, wont be out for a few months, and things are stale now. Furthermore I would go as far as to say the new factions will not be competitive initially because they don't have access to strike teams right off the bat. People will still use the new factions because they are new and exciting but Ill be very surprised if we see them at top tables.

On 4/19/2019 at 2:42 AM, Cleto0 said:

Haha. if you want an elite army that is all heros play imperial assault. I am fine with large units of elite troops, not hero armies 

I don't think anyone wants hero armies. All I want is to not have to choose between running 3 sniper teams or not having a chance of placing in a tournament.

3 hours ago, Derrault said:

Counter-point: that data only demonstrates that sniper teams are liked by that group of players, not that they’re a dominant unit per se. 

Counter-counter point: The good players run 3 sniper teams because it makes their list good and they are looking to win.

3 hours ago, Derrault said:

If you want to demonstrate that, you’d have to have control trials of the same players playing basically the same game with different setups, and not just one trial per setup per player, but hundreds.

Not true really. If you have a large enough sample size you can draw conclusions without controlling every variable such as the person behind the list. I don't know if we have enough data for that though, I haven't looked at it, so I can only comment on my local meta; those who were winning before snipers release are still winning after sniper release, and those who win run 3 snipers. When you talk to these people about not running 3 snipers they say things along the lines of "why would I do that? I want a chance at winning."

Snipers have been around for a while I so far I haven't found anything to effectively deal with them that doesn't involve 3 snipers of your own. That's the issue. Yes chewie works well but unless you have snipers of your own you'll just hemorrhage wounds. You need something that can counterattack and that something is snipers.

Edited by Qark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Qark said:

hemorrhage

My local meta hasn't change for a few waves. A few upgrades change here and there and maybe a unit swaps around after a release but otherwise game have felt the same for months. That is the definition of stale. Yes, new factions will change things but they aren't out yet, wont be out for a few months, and things are stale now. Furthermore I would go as far as to say the new factions will not be competitive initially because they don't have access to strike teams right off the bat. People will still use the new factions because they are new and exciting but Ill be very surprised if we see them at top tables.

I don't think anyone wants hero armies. All I want is to not have to choose between running 3 sniper teams or not having a chance of placing in a tournament.

Counter-counter point: The good players run 3 sniper teams because it makes their list good and they are looking to win.

Not true really. If you have a large enough sample size you can draw conclusions without controlling every variable such so the person behind the list, I don't know if we have enough data for that though, I haven't looked at it, so I can only comment on my local meta; those who were winning before snipers release are still winning after sniper release, and those who win run 3 snipers. When you talk to these people about not running 3 snipers they say things along the lines of "why would I do that? I want a chance at winning."

Snipers have been around for a while I so far I haven't found anything to effectively deal with them that doesn't involve 3 snipers of your own. That's the issue. Yes chewie works well but unless you have snipers of your own you'll just hemorrhage wounds. You need something that can counterattack and that something is snipers.

Yes, we do not have anything approaching a large sample size. Large is on the order of tends of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of examples.

With the actual sample sizes, there’s no valid conclusions that can be drawn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/19/2019 at 11:14 PM, TalkPolite said:

Yeah chewie isn’t a terrible counter. I like BBQ a lot though, I would have liked to see Kyle run it at HC because I think he would have went to the top with it anyway! 

Hah... you’re the one that talked me off the ledge on that one in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Derrault you are trying to give us lessons on statistical significance, the law of large numbers, etc.

We get it, you are arguing that the stuff we are saying will not hold up in a peer reviewed academic article.

Your right!!!

No one cares.... 

Snipers are very common among players that placed near the top of the large events we mentioned, every event I go to they are played extensively.  I played a 3 round event and a cut game Saturday, in 4 games I faced 7 sniper teams.  No other non-core unit in the game approaches this absurd level of popularity.  That should sound alarm bells in everyone's heads.  Any time a unit is that popular, especially if that unit is that popular regardless of faction, it needs to be examined and dealt with because it is crowding out other options from seeing high level play.

It also does not help that snipers prey on bigger, more elite units,  they are a death trooper's worst nightmare...  They make expensive units that use range, good armor, or cover, a liability when you suspect they will be chipped down easily by shooting that bypasses their expensive gear and can strike from any range.  When you expect to see 3 units of these every game why would you risk it?  The real issue is that the game is so heavily skewed toward MSU, high activation count leveraging lists that anything over about 75 points has a hard time seeing play.  People are scarred to run below 10 activations because activations are so good.

If there was a support unit released right now that was 45 points, unless it was truly useless, it would also be spammed for the exact same reason as snipers... for activation padding.  You would see 3 of these units just to pad activations.  

You can call it redundancy to justify it, but it simplifies the game down from a concert of different units interacting down to a monotone of "corner peak, fire, repeat,"

The Z-6 and trooper spam is equally simplistic and robs the game of the diversity it could have but they are core units so its hard to do much about it.  

We all easily see that redundancy is great, specially to control an order pool, we all easily see the advantage of Last/First, its supper obvious.  Infinite range weapons that ignore things like cover and armor is obviously very consistent. 

Competitive lists are best when they are all these things,  its super obvious why the 6 trooper 3 sniper lists are good, but it does not create a game state that encourages much of an actual game. 

What good is winning if the manor in which you win is formulaic and simplistic.  Did you win through tactical ingenuity or through simply fielding the most efficient list?  

PLAY SOMETHING THAT IS MORE CHALLENGING!!! Lists designed to leverage the same 2-3 units over and over again does not make you a tactical genius, just a guy who is willing to forgo  the chance for a real game in order to make your job of winning easier.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Angry Ewok said:

Derrault you are trying to give us lessons on statistical significance, the law of large numbers, etc.

We get it, you are arguing that the stuff we are saying will not hold up in a peer reviewed academic article.

Your right!!!

No one cares.... 

Snipers are very common among players that placed near the top of the large events we mentioned, every event I go to they are played extensively.  I played a 3 round event and a cut game Saturday, in 4 games I faced 7 sniper teams.  No other non-core unit in the game approaches this absurd level of popularity.  That should sound alarm bells in everyone's heads.  Any time a unit is that popular, especially if that unit is that popular regardless of faction, it needs to be examined and dealt with because it is crowding out other options from seeing high level play.

It also does not help that snipers prey on bigger, more elite units,  they are a death trooper's worst nightmare...  They make expensive units that use range, good armor, or cover, a liability when you suspect they will be chipped down easily by shooting that bypasses their expensive gear and can strike from any range.  When you expect to see 3 units of these every game why would you risk it?  The real issue is that the game is so heavily skewed toward MSU, high activation count leveraging lists that anything over about 75 points has a hard time seeing play.  People are scarred to run below 10 activations because activations are so good.

If there was a support unit released right now that was 45 points, unless it was truly useless, it would also be spammed for the exact same reason as snipers... for activation padding.  You would see 3 of these units just to pad activations.  

You can call it redundancy to justify it, but it simplifies the game down from a concert of different units interacting down to a monotone of "corner peak, fire, repeat,"

The Z-6 and trooper spam is equally simplistic and robs the game of the diversity it could have but they are core units so its hard to do much about it.  

We all easily see that redundancy is great, specially to control an order pool, we all easily see the advantage of Last/First, its supper obvious.  Infinite range weapons that ignore things like cover and armor is obviously very consistent. 

Competitive lists are best when they are all these things,  its super obvious why the 6 trooper 3 sniper lists are good, but it does not create a game state that encourages much of an actual game. 

What good is winning if the manor in which you win is formulaic and simplistic.  Did you win through tactical ingenuity or through simply fielding the most efficient list?  

PLAY SOMETHING THAT IS MORE CHALLENGING!!! Lists designed to leverage the same 2-3 units over and over again does not make you a tactical genius, just a guy who is willing to forgo  the chance for a real game in order to make your job of winning easier.

 

 

I agree with everything that you stated except the last part. People should be allowed to play the game however they feel. If they want to run the best optimal let them. It's not their fault that the designers created an imbalance. SO trying to put someone down, because they are running the most competitive option is just WRONG.

I've been playing 40K, Fantasy, and now this for about 10 years now. There will always be something that is optimal. It is the nature of the game. People will exploit it. This doesn't make them "less tactical/intelligent" than people who don't run the optimal units. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Angry Ewok said:

Derrault you are trying to give us lessons on statistical significance, the law of large numbers, etc.

We get it, you are arguing that the stuff we are saying will not hold up in a peer reviewed academic article.

Your right!!!

No one cares.... 

Snipers are very common among players that placed near the top of the large events we mentioned, every event I go to they are played extensively.  I played a 3 round event and a cut game Saturday, in 4 games I faced 7 sniper teams.  No other non-core unit in the game approaches this absurd level of popularity.  That should sound alarm bells in everyone's heads.  Any time a unit is that popular, especially if that unit is that popular regardless of faction, it needs to be examined and dealt with because it is crowding out other options from seeing high level play.

It also does not help that snipers prey on bigger, more elite units,  they are a death trooper's worst nightmare...  They make expensive units that use range, good armor, or cover, a liability when you suspect they will be chipped down easily by shooting that bypasses their expensive gear and can strike from any range.  When you expect to see 3 units of these every game why would you risk it?  The real issue is that the game is so heavily skewed toward MSU, high activation count leveraging lists that anything over about 75 points has a hard time seeing play.  People are scarred to run below 10 activations because activations are so good.

If there was a support unit released right now that was 45 points, unless it was truly useless, it would also be spammed for the exact same reason as snipers... for activation padding.  You would see 3 of these units just to pad activations.  

You can call it redundancy to justify it, but it simplifies the game down from a concert of different units interacting down to a monotone of "corner peak, fire, repeat,"

The Z-6 and trooper spam is equally simplistic and robs the game of the diversity it could have but they are core units so its hard to do much about it.  

We all easily see that redundancy is great, specially to control an order pool, we all easily see the advantage of Last/First, its supper obvious.  Infinite range weapons that ignore things like cover and armor is obviously very consistent. 

Competitive lists are best when they are all these things,  its super obvious why the 6 trooper 3 sniper lists are good, but it does not create a game state that encourages much of an actual game. 

What good is winning if the manor in which you win is formulaic and simplistic.  Did you win through tactical ingenuity or through simply fielding the most efficient list?  

PLAY SOMETHING THAT IS MORE CHALLENGING!!! Lists designed to leverage the same 2-3 units over and over again does not make you a tactical genius, just a guy who is willing to forgo  the chance for a real game in order to make your job of winning easier.

 

 

It really sounds like you're furious at people for enjoying the game differently than you would prefer them to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/19/2019 at 10:14 PM, TalkPolite said:

Yeah chewie isn’t a terrible counter. I like BBQ a lot though, I would have liked to see Kyle run it at HC because I think he would have went to the top with it anyway! 

I really want to know what BBQ consists of in this context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...