Jump to content

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, DarkTrooperZero said:

Luke is a single model who can easily hide and can be safe in combat.

Can you please just go away with the T47 is great rubbish.

If he’s hiding he can’t deal damage.

And he can’t be “safe” in combat when an engaged unit can simply withdraw exposing him to fire with zero cover. (I assume that’s what you meant).

You’re misrepresenting my position; I (and you) don’t know how good the 47 is, I’m just not willing to claim it’s bad without actual proof. 

Separately, the claim that it’s cost ineffective is easily disproven, because we have points of comparison (Luke) who are less cost effective. That doesn’t make the 47 (or Luke) bad, it just means the 47 is definitely more cost effective than Luke is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Derrault said:

I’ll have to disagree with one of your premises there.

It deals as much damage (or more if you take the hardpoint, which is, I think, the least expensive upgrade for what it does at only 5 points per black die) as Luke, is faster than Luke by a mile, and has better defenses than Luke. (Armor reducing incoming damage substantially more than by 1/6).

So, do you also think Luke is poop? Because he’s demonstrably inferior from a cost effectiveness POV. 

Luke can move as he likes, he can move forward, sideways of backwards. He does not need arc for shooting and if he is in melee he cannot be targeted by ranged attacks. If I had to explain to you why Luke is "Hot stuff" and the T47 is just "Hoth stuff" I think we are going to be here for a long time.

 

And now I will give you some data about the T47. Here (in the north of Spain) I have a pretty large community and we have the LEGION ABACO League (ABACO being my association of gamers). We have a 24 players each 6 months and we are currently playing the 3rd one. We make one 1 army list for the entire league (5 games and a top8cut). The first league had 2 ATST and 3 T47 players. All of them went 0-5 except one ATST player who was in the same group than another T47 player so he went 1-4 thanks to winning the game vs the T47 player. At the beginning of the 2nd league we made a rule  for the las top8 players. They were obligated to include an ATST (if imperial) or a T47 (if rebel). Same players and this second time there were no T47 or ATST except the last top8 players. Results? There were 5 T47 players and 3 ATST players and just one of them did ok (an ATST player who went 3-2 not making the cut either). Checking the excel of the 2nd League I see 2 T47 players making a 0-5, 2 making a 1-4 (both of them vs ATST or T47) and a last one making a 2-3 (one vs ATST the other one vs "a regular list").

Now, you do not know the group but I can assure you it is a very hardcore group with a lot of experience in wargames and in legion in particular. And I am pretty sure about what does it mean a complete shake up in a top8 cut when the same players play a second league (well, all but one who was replaced for another member of the group, neither of them made the cut anyway).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Senjius said:

And now I will give you some data about the T47.

Wow, you guys are super organised! I really like that rule - force the top players to use the units everyone is iffy on and hopefully they strike gold. A shame no gold was struck.

Thanks for your post!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Derrault, please stop replying, everything you post is nonsense. Everyone knows the t47 is radically overpriced. The competitive community would be using it if it wasn't and they never ever use it.

Share this post


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

Derrault, please stop replying, everything you post is nonsense. Everyone knows the t47 is radically overpriced. The competitive community would be using it if it wasn't and they never ever use it.

If everyone knows it then why is there a new one of these freaking "tea-FoUrdEe SeVin don't gOts gooD" threads every single week?  Don't have a hissy fit just because someone disagrees with you.  When you throw an opinion out on a forum it is kinda expected that people will respond with their own opinions.  Even *gasp* ones that you don't agree with.

Edited by devin.pike.1989

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Senjius

"Luke can move as he likes, he can move forward, sideways of backwards. He does not need arc for shooting and if he is in melee he cannot be targeted by ranged attacks. If I had to explain to you why Luke is "Hot stuff" and the T47 is just "Hoth stuff" I think we are going to be here for a long time. "

I did, in the very post you quoted, explain exactly how an opponent can withdraw, which screws Luke over by leaving him with zero cover (until suppression of course).

Luke's saber attack may not need an arc...but it's also range 0, not range 3. 
Do you understand the difference between hitting an enemy 18" + 11" (39") + 11" (50") away and 12" away?

The 47 can on any given activation hit a target 4 feet (2/3 of the play space length-wise) away from its starting position, Luke, at best, can tag someone a foot away. i.e. 1/6 of the table length.

Sure, Luke can move omnidirectionally, but he's slow enough that his reach is quite limited, and in fact he's so slow that if there's a target across the board, he pretty much has to run non-stop to reach it...and even then, he might literally be incapable of harming it if he can't move in a straight line. Let's say...if there's a piece of terrain that's height 2 (which, I shouldn't have to remind you, is recommended in FFG's guidelines), for example.

If you needed to get to the other half of the board to stop a target as Rebels, the T-47 is pretty much the only chance of that happening. So, for maneuverability, there's no equal, not by a long shot.

"And now I will give you some data about the T47. Here (in the north of Spain) I have a pretty large community and we have the LEGION ABACO League (ABACO being my association of gamers). We have a 24 players each 6 months and we are currently playing the 3rd one. We make one 1 army list for the entire league (5 games and a top8cut). The first league had 2 ATST and 3 T47 players. All of them went 0-5 except one ATST player who was in the same group than another T47 player so he went 1-4 thanks to winning the game vs the T47 player. At the beginning of the 2nd league we made a rule  for the las top8 players. They were obligated to include an ATST (if imperial) or a T47 (if rebel). Same players and this second time there were no T47 or ATST except the last top8 players. Results? There were 5 T47 players and 3 ATST players and just one of them did ok (an ATST player who went 3-2 not making the cut either). Checking the excel of the 2nd League I see 2 T47 players making a 0-5, 2 making a 1-4 (both of them vs ATST or T47) and a last one making a 2-3 (one vs ATST the other one vs "a regular list")."

Thank you for the summary!

Sorry if I'm not parsing this correctly, but when you say one army list for the entire league, do you mean that players don't alter their lists over the course of the tournament?

Do you happen to have the battle reports on those? I'd be curious to see the chain of events for each (i.e. Review for attribution error).

"Now, you do not know the group but I can assure you it is a very hardcore group with a lot of experience in wargames and in legion in particular. And I am pretty sure about what does it mean a complete shake up in a top8 cut when the same players play a second league (well, all but one who was replaced for another member of the group, neither of them made the cut anyway)."

Yes, aren't we all? That being said, I'd need to know the course of events for each match.

@Thraug
"Derrault, please stop replying, everything you post is nonsense. Everyone knows the t47 is radically overpriced. The competitive community would be using it if it wasn't and they never ever use it."

Ah, so you're saying that the T-47 is no True Scotsman than?

Share this post


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

Why am I not surprised that the goalposts moved? :D

They did not; I posited there was insufficient data. 

Unless you’re claiming that a basic summary of W-L can tell us how a player used a given unit, what the deviation from the average was for dice rolled, etcetera.

No, it can’t, that’s why W-L aren’t particularly useful, except (perhaps) for identifying where to dive deeper. 

Share this post


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

Sorry if I'm not parsing this correctly, but when you say one army list for the entire league, do you mean that players don't alter their lists over the course of the tournament?

Do you happen to have the battle reports on those? I'd be curious to see the chain of events for each (i.e. Review for attribution error).

Yes, aren't we all? That being said, I'd need to know the course of events for each match.

Yes, they do not alter their lists over the course of the entire League.

No, we do not keep battle reports of the 67 games. You can think we are falling under a fundamental attribution error or the simpler explanation that the best top8 in the first league where somehow hindered by the inclusion of expensive ineffective heavy options. Or maybe is just an incredible coincidence which happened in 39 games out of 40 (24/24 in the first league). I think you have more than enough data now but it is ok if you want to know what did we have for breakfast and if it somehow hindered our performance with the T47 😉

 

Edited by Senjius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/7/2019 at 4:07 PM, TauntaunScout said:

Personally I'm feeling more and more like big vehicles are unofficially meant for 1600 point games.

 

I've used a T47 in every game I've ever played and its usefulness has varied depending on the opposition.  In the early days displacement and a cannon shot often was enough to send a flanking trooper unit running but what with veterans, officers and cheap commanders that's less common.   I used one to block rapid reinforcements the other day which was handy and was a definite help to winning the game and that's the strength I've found in it- it allows me to improvise a solution to certain problems and my commander choice (Han) keeps it going when there is a danger of imminent flak.  

It's certainly not worthwhile in a straight up fight against a confident/meticulous/experienced tournament player where my trickiness will lose out to solid, standard (slightly boring) play.

That said, playing it at 1600 points showed it to be very effective at dealing with enemy armour which suppresses the infantry. At 1600+ points they're very useful indeed and are effective at what they were designed for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm rather in the middle regarding the t47.  Its not the hot pile of garbage some think it is, but its definitely more difficult to use than other units.  It also is more susceptible to bad matchups.  Its a decent to great anti armor unit that sadly often has no armor to shoot at in many games.  

It falls firmly under my situationally useful/cost effective units in the game.  Its not always a bad idea, but its also easy for several reasons for it to be hard to play to its strengths compared to other units. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep getting sucked in to these discussions because the T-47 is probably my favorite flying vehicle in the franchise, so I have a strong personal bias here.  :)  I enjoy flying them and will sometimes squeeze two in my games when I'm feeling saucy. 

That said, I think the "T-47 sucks" threads kind of miss the point.  Here's why...

I remember listening to an interview with Alex Davy where he talked about some of the general concepts they keep in mind when designing Legion.  He specifically mentioned the three different types of gamers from MtG:

https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/timmy-johnny-and-spike-2013-12-03

Summary

  • Timmy likes to blow things up with big things
  • Johnny likes army building and cool combos
  • Spike likes competing in tournaments

So keeping this framework in mind, it's my hypothesis that vehicles are designed for the Timmy type of player, someone who wants to see big things on the game board and has fun blowing things up with them.  Because of this, they are--and will mostly likely always be--a bad choice for a competitive list.  They are not designed for Spikes.

This does not make them "bad" however!  They are working as intended: drawing in players who like playing with Star Wars vehicles (the Timmys).

So to sum up, I have no problem admitting that the T-47 is bad in the competitive scene (so are Darth Vader, the Emperor, the AT-ST, and any other expensive unit for that matter); however I do think that the complaints against them are a bit off the mark.  It's like folks are buying sports cars and then complaining about the lack of cargo space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I highly doubt they desig units to specifically target only one or two of these three archetypes, when they can make all 3 of them happy.

There's no way the designers sit down and say "let's just make this unit for Timmys!".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Senjius
Yes, they do not alter their lists over the course of the entire League. 

"No, we do not keep battle reports of the 67 games. You can think we are falling under a fundamental attribution error or the simpler explanation that the best top8 in the first league where somehow hindered by the inclusion of expensive ineffective heavy options. Or maybe is just an incredible coincidence which happened in 39 games out of 40 (24/24 in the first league). I think you have more than enough data now but it is ok if you want to know what did we have for breakfast and if it somehow hindered our performance with the T47"

I think the problem is that I can't verify one way or another exactly 'what' the causitive factors are.

For example: If you have two players who went 5-0, how do you know which player won all their games by the skin of their teeth (i.e. last turn and last activation victory point grabs/denials for the opponent) and how many sailed to victory?

You don't, not purely on the basis of W-L record.

Similarly, it doesn't tell us if the results were one-off anomalies that would not have been repeated in the event of a rematch between those same players using those same armies.

Nor does it surprise me that players who had to use a new and unfamiliar list might have greater difficulty than players who were able to re-use the exact same list season to season (having access to the season records of any given player, and their match-ups might help there).

So, no, when it comes to the outcomes of a sport (and this is pretty much the equivalent), having game tape is pretty well the only way to determine what strategies are or aren't effective (the closest sports metaphor I can think of off hand would be which plays get used in football: Sometimes plays work, sometimes they don't, but the why is pretty much only determinable by reviewing the individual play; not just looking at the team record and asking 'Did they use play X?' that would almost certainly end in a misleading answer).


@ABXY
"I do believe the OP asked: 

"what do you think"  

not  

"what can you scientifically prove with a high level of statistical confidence"" 

The key part of that statement was "will make the T-47 playable", because many players assume (for disputable reasons) that it's not.

If someone, in giving their opinion, tries to make a statement of fact they should be prepared to support that claim with evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Derrault said:

I think the problem is that I can't verify one way or another exactly 'what' the causitive factors are.

For example: If you have two players who went 5-0, how do you know which player won all their games by the skin of their teeth (i.e. last turn and last activation victory point grabs/denials for the opponent) and how many sailed to victory?

You don't, not purely on the basis of W-L record.

Well, as a matter of fact. I do. I have both the points of victory and the destructed points per army. Neither of them is any good for the T47. In fact, their lists are the only one who had their entire army destroyed more than once per league. In fact they have the bigger difference in points of victory by far (being them the losing side).

 

Quote

Similarly, it doesn't tell us if the results were one-off anomalies that would not have been repeated in the event of a rematch between those same players using those same armies.
 

One game out of ten maybe is won by an anomaly. 62 games out of 63 is in no way a cause of anomalies.

 

Quote

Nor does it surprise me that players who had to use a new and unfamiliar list might have greater difficulty than players who were able to re-use the exact same list season to season (having access to the season records of any given player, and their match-ups might help there).

The TOP8 of our league (myself included) are people who have been playing since Legion was avalaible. We bought our ATSTs and our T47s the first day and we have been playing them a lot because at first, we did not have many other options. In fact, that could have been an advantageous for us because newer players did not play so much vs a T47. It appears that advantage was not enough for any of us.

 

Quote

So, no, when it comes to the outcomes of a sport (and this is pretty much the equivalent), having game tape is pretty well the only way to determine what strategies are or aren't effective (the closest sports metaphor I can think of off hand would be which plays get used in football: Sometimes plays work, sometimes they don't, but the why is pretty much only determinable by reviewing the individual play; not just looking at the team record and asking 'Did they use play X?' that would almost certainly end in a misleading answer).

When enough data is provided you certainly can do some asumptions and when the data is just enormous...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Irokenics said:

@Derrault I'm curious to know what you consider a good T47 list.

I'd like to try it since you're such a strong advocate for it.

Here's a list I ran for 2 casual games (I won both games).

Han, Leia & T-47 (798){9}
Leia Organa [90](108)
  Commanding Presence [10]
  Emergency Stims [8]

Han Solo [120](128)
  Emergency Stims [8]

Fleet Troopers [44](67)
  Scatter Gun Trooper [23]

Rebel Troopers [40](62) x5
  Z-6 Trooper [22]

T-47 Airspeeder [175](185)
  Long-Range Comlink [10]

Commands
1) Ambush, Coordinated Bombardment
2) No Time for Sorrows, Push
3) Change of Plans, Som. Has to Save Our Skins
4) Standing Orders

Deployments
Advanced Positions, Battle Lines, Disarray, Major Offensive

Objectives
Intercept the Transmissions, Key Positions, Recover the Supplies, Sabotage the Moisture Vaporators

Conditions
Clear Conditions, Hostile Environment, Limited Visibility, Minefield
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Senjius
"Well, as a matter of fact. I do. I have both the points of victory and the destructed points per army. Neither of them is any good for the T47. In fact, their lists are the only one who had their entire army destroyed more than once per league. In fact they have the bigger difference in points of victory by far (being them the losing side)."

I think you've misunderstood what I wrote. Looking only at the final state of the board does not tell us 'how' that state was arrived at.
Nor, for that matter, do points destroyed reflect that (and they also don't show which units were decimated; i.e. damaged so much that their effectiveness was negligible); nor do they pinpoint the plays on which the actual outcome of the game revolved (i.e. A different roll leads to a unit being destroyed, and flipping points/changing the calculus of the opponents, etc.).

@Senjius
"One game out of ten maybe is won by an anomaly. 62 games out of 63 is in no way a cause of anomalies."

I didn't say all the games were anomalies, only that you have no way of knowing which ones are (although if there's a massive disconnect between the points destroyed, it's probably worth looking at to see EXACTLY why). All it takes is a few games being flipped and the outcomes look substantially different.

Lastly, if we assume as many as one game out of ten (and I don't know on what basis we're doing that without actually reviewing choices made in the game?), we're looking at 6 games, which is more than an 0-5 or 5-0 record; N'est pas? That reads as significant.

If you still have the data, can you select all + copy -> paste the lists, match-ups and results to the Battle reports forum?

@Senjius
"When enough data is provided you certainly can do some asumptions and when the data is just enormous..."

And the amount of data you've provided is neither enough nor enormous, from the perspective of statistical analysis.

Are you familiar with the replication problem? That's for things that have literally hundreds of samples.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4968573/

A few dozen? No, thank you, that's totally insufficient to draw a statistical conclusion. Two to Eight samples? Might as well have none at all.


@Irokenics
"I'm curious to know what you consider a good T47 list. 

I'd like to try it since you're such a strong advocate for it."

I'm a strong advocate for reason. If someone claimed that 'any' unit was terrible, I'd want actual corroborative evidence of that. 

Further, I think any list can win, against any opponent, using the correct strategy; instead of asking 'what list' one should ask 'how' I'd use a T-47 in a list.

That depends on what the opponent is fielding and what the objective/condition/deployment (OCD) cards are.

Some of the OCD cards which probably are favorable to using a T-47, so you'd probably want to include them when building your OCD deck (The Minefield condition card comes to mind, since repulsor units don't activate mines; depending on opposition Limited Visibility or Hostile Environment would be favorable as well).
Objective-wise, it's fast enough that even on the long march it can move 33" per turn if needed (just under half the distance on the table) for Breakthrough.

How to use it? Again, that depends (in part) on what the opposition has on the table. 
i.e. It's completely safe against melee, so Luke, Vader, and the IRG are non-factors. (Saber Throw isn't threatening enough, nor ranged enough, to be a plausible threat on its own; with Cover 1 it would require 3 crits to deal more than 2 damage; at cover 2 it would require at least 2 crits to deal to 2 damage)

Prioritization of targets depends on how the opponent deployed (i.e. what's closest? Is that target important to the victory condition? Is another target more critical to deal with asap?), and what they deployed (i.e. If there are 2+ target options each round, which one is more threatening to the 47 itself? To the other units you've brought?)

As an example, if there's an AT-RT w/Flamer and a Z-6 unit in range of the T-47 but out of range for everything else, I'd 'probably' target the Z-6 first to reduce its possible output (the RT being virtually incapable of harming the 47; .333 expected wounds per attack vs the Z-6's 0.91667). If the RT presents a clear and present danger to an infantry unit, I'd hose that down first if doing so likely meant removing that threat (i.e. possibly destroying the weapon attachment, or crippling its ability to move).

The reason for picking the RT over the Z-6 in that case would be because the RT deals 1.25 damage per mini (7.5 in a full group! 5 expected wounds on rebel corps vis 4 from a full Z-6 for 2.667 expected wounds)

Did you have a more specific example for a 'what would you do?' type of question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of keeping the T47 alive, I've found it's very much a case of controlling distance as it's too large and high to control LoS. 

Luke can control LoS: he can hide behind a hut before leaping out and hacking up a target and using melee to shield himself from fire which is pretty simple.  It's still easy to mess up, but any kid who has played a melee unit in 40k or similar has done the same thing so it's a common skill.  The T47 on the other hand has a hard time controlling LoS: it needs to safely move around bubbles of threat from many units on the board which is hard to do while still making a relevant impact on the battle.  Sometimes nigh on impossible depending on the opposition.

I find it useful to think of it like the flight simulator games I used to play back in the nineties, particularly the stealth fighter ones- It's critical to stick to the edge of and weave between SAM radar ranges unless actively hunting one of those radars.  In this case those radars are range 3 of squads/vehicles with impact.

In terms of army lists, an HQ Uplink works well with 'sorry about the mess' and 'reckless diversion' but this is no secret. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/11/2019 at 8:35 AM, Derrault said:

I'm a strong advocate for reason. If someone claimed that 'any' unit was terrible, I'd want actual corroborative evidence of that. 

That's fine, im just of the understanding that since you stand for it strongly that you would have an idea or experience on what a list archetype of some kind that does favourably well with a T-47.

On 5/11/2019 at 8:35 AM, Derrault said:

Further, I think any list can win, against any opponent, using the correct strategy; instead of asking 'what list' one should ask 'how' I'd use a T-47 in a list.

I'm just asking for a specific list that you think has done consistently well with a T-47. Because list building is a key fundamental to this game, i want to know the lists 'gimmick' is to do this right. Like am i going to include only 1 T-47 or should i be ideally be flying 2? Do you support them with astromechs? What commander is ideal? etc.

Additionally, i ask this because other list achetypes have a general baseline power about them due to their 'gimmick' which serves to raise the floor when it comes to results regardless of the OCD cards chosen, the rest is up to player skill. For example, all the rebel double commander trooper spam lists do well in all OCD card combinations chosen. 

Thus i ask you what T47 list have you been using that consistently wins? I'm not going to critque it, im just going to use it. Possibly at a tournament, where winning 3x in a row is important.

On 5/11/2019 at 8:35 AM, Derrault said:

Did you have a more specific example for a 'what would you do?' type of question?

No, just asking for a list that you consistently win with and what are it's general strategies. Some of which you'd already laid out already.

 

Also please use the quote function or the tag function @Derrault. You were doing it before in the thread but you stopped and quote people via text which is harder to read and doesnt send a notification of your reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Irokenics said:

That's fine, im just of the understanding that since you stand for it strongly that you would have an idea or experience on what a list archetype of some kind that does favourably well with a T-47.

I'm just asking for a specific list that you think has done consistently well with a T-47. Because list building is a key fundamental to this game, i want to know the lists 'gimmick' is to do this right. Like am i going to include only 1 T-47 or should i be ideally be flying 2? Do you support them with astromechs? What commander is ideal? etc.

Additionally, i ask this because other list achetypes have a general baseline power about them due to their 'gimmick' which serves to raise the floor when it comes to results regardless of the OCD cards chosen, the rest is up to player skill. For example, all the rebel double commander trooper spam lists do well in all OCD card combinations chosen. 

Thus i ask you what T47 list have you been using that consistently wins? I'm not going to critque it, im just going to use it. Possibly at a tournament, where winning 3x in a row is important.

No, just asking for a list that you consistently win with and what are it's general strategies. Some of which you'd already laid out already.

 

Also please use the quote function or the tag function @Derrault. You were doing it before in the thread but you stopped and quote people via text which is harder to read and doesnt send a notification of your reply.

I was actually typing freeform and then copy/pasting, sometimes going back and using the @ persons name thing.

In any case, I disagree fundamentally with your thesis. I don’t think it matters what your list consists of, unit-wise, there’s always a path to victory.

Share this post


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

I was actually typing freeform and then copy/pasting, sometimes going back and using the @ persons name thing.

Cool, you probably weren't selecting the names from the lists then since it just comes up as text.

39 minutes ago, Derrault said:

In any case, I disagree fundamentally with your thesis. I don’t think it matters what your list consists of, unit-wise, there’s always a path to victory.

Irrelevant if you agree or disagree. I just want you to provide me a list that you have experienced a win from, even better, just one that you think will do well. It's not a trick question or a difficult request i don't imagine.

I don't want to throw a T47 into a random build that you don't approve of after all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...