The T-47 gains barrage. Is it now playable?

[TauntaunScout 4,276]

The ST and 47 have an arguable advantage in that they can see right over most people’s scenery. Which a lot of people, caught up in damage to points ratios, forget to use. Course it also makes it easier to see and shoot at them...

Derrault’s bigger point which is correct, and repeatedly missed, is that tournament lists aren’t proof that something is good or bad. There are other explanations that aren’t controlled for. For example, if a Compulsory  unit comes in the starter box it may see higher use than any other compulsory  option due to real-world monetary considerations. Thus its inclusion by itself (or the exclusion of a pricey alternative) wouldn’t prove superiority in and of itself. That’s just one example. There are other reasons for lists looking like they do besides effectiveness, and lots more research-rocks to overturn if one really cared to. Don’t kid yourself, irrational fashions have influenced more serious games than World’s in the last 100 years. I am not saying T-47’s are good and strike teams are bad. But the rate with which they appear in tournament lists is a flawed metric alone. Unless you’re researching SW:L in a few hundred years and those lists are among the only surviving evidence.

I was never able to do much with the 47 but rather like single ST lists. I fully intend to give the 47 another chance though. 

Personally, I suspect that the designers were using them more in 1600 pt games, and then the game came out and the community largely ignored the Grand Army option. 

Edited August 17, 2019 by TauntaunScout

[R3dReVenge 441]

8 hours ago, TauntaunScout said:

The ST and 47 have an arguable advantage in that they can see right over most people’s scenery. Which a lot of people, caught up in damage to points ratios, forget to use. Course it also makes it easier to see and shoot at them...

Do you not play with area of terrain or garrison buildings?

8 hours ago, TauntaunScout said:

For example, if a Compulsory  unit comes in the starter box it may see higher use than any other compulsory  option due to real-world monetary considerations. Thus its inclusion by itself (or the exclusion of a pricey alternative) wouldn’t prove superiority in and of itself.

I would agree with this logic, if the game had only been out for a few months. However, It's been out for a year+. Players have had plenty of time to purchase a variety of units. 

I don't know how much competitive gaming experience you've had, but from my experience.... People aren't going to spend the time and money to travel to another state to compete in a tournament, if they felt their list wasn't fully optimized. In fact, if they are on a strict budget (where single dollar bills are preventing them from purchasing a unit), then they shouldn't even be competing in the tournament. Money is to tight for them and they should be spending it to provide for themselves and their family. 

Another reason why this is a poor excuse is because the most taken unit outside of units in the core set, was the most expensive monetary unit out there when compared to it's in game price. Players were taking 2-3 squads of snipers which cost 44 points, yet costs $24.99. It makes more sense to take the T-47 which costs 175 points and only costs $29.99. 

8 hours ago, TauntaunScout said:

Derrault’s bigger point which is correct, and repeatedly missed, is that tournament lists aren’t proof that something is good or bad. 

Right.... Because the best players in the world aren't taking the best units to the world championship. 

8 hours ago, TauntaunScout said:

But the rate with which they appear in tournament lists is a flawed metric alone. Unless you’re researching SW:L in a few hundred years and those lists are among the only surviving evidence.

Good lists win and bad lists lose. I wonder why the top lists all looked very similar......

8 hours ago, TauntaunScout said:

I was never able to do much with the 47 but rather like single ST lists. I fully intend to give the 47 another chance though. 

Personally, I suspect that the designers were using them more in 1600 pt games, and then the game came out and the community largely ignored the Grand Army option. 

I have no interest in playing GCW factions now that CW factions are on the horizon. I bet 1600 pt games become a more regular thing now that people's armies are getting larger and super heavies are in our future. 

[TauntaunScout 4,276]

Good players win too. If you gave the assorted top winners a bad list I suspect they’ll still beat most other players at the local store. 

People spend money in bad ways all the time. Proves nothing unless you can control for it somehow in your analysis.

Olympic and professional sports have been dominated by irrational blind spots that outsiders exploited to great advantage. By your logic the approach of those pros and Olympians was the best just cause the big dogs were doing it. Except we now know it wasn’t the best. The best players weren’t using the best techniques possible at the biggest tournaments in the world for far bigger games with way more on the line than Legion. It’s happened.

The T-47 might be awful and strike teams might be great, but tournament lists aren’t solid proof. I am arguing the definition of “proof” not the efficacy of Legion units here. 

I dunno what “garrison buildings” are but my vehicles can see right into most of the 3D printed ewok villages out there, and over most of the LOS blocking walls stores have around. 

Edited August 18, 2019 by TauntaunScout

[R3dReVenge 441]

3 hours ago, TauntaunScout said:

Good players win too. If you gave the assorted top winners a bad list I suspect they’ll still beat most other players at the local store.

Part of being a good player is building the right list. List composition plays a huge role. I would say 50% is list composition and 50% is player skill.

3 hours ago, TauntaunScout said:

Olympic and professional sports have been dominated by irrational blind spots that outsiders exploited to great advantage. By your logic the approach of those pros and Olympians was the best just cause the big dogs were doing it. Except we now know it wasn’t the best. The best players weren’t using the best techniques possible at the biggest tournaments in the world for far bigger games with way more on the line than Legion. It’s happened. 

There is nothing wrong with taking a different approach to competing in a tournament. Even if it’s against the standard of what’s “best”. If that player is able to show the community through results that their way works best then I’m sure the community will adapt and players opinions will change. But until that happens, I’ll believe what the best are doing.

3 hours ago, TauntaunScout said:

The T-47 might be awful and strike teams might be great, but tournament lists aren’t solid proof. I am arguing the definition of “proof” not the efficacy of Legion units here.

If a list wins a tournament, then you can believe that it isn’t “proof” of it being good. But I’m going to. There is a reason several elite players brought lists that looked similar... draw your own conclusions and I will mine. It’s also important to note that I’m drawing conclusions from my actual experience and experience of my local gaming community. 

3 hours ago, TauntaunScout said:

I dunno what “garrison buildings” are but my vehicles can see right into most of the 3D printed ewok villages out there, and over most of the LOS blocking walls stores have around. 

Think of a garrison building as a building where units can enter (it has a roof) and shoot out of via windows. I have a few of them on my Tatooine board. 

[Derrault 1,091]

2 hours ago, R3dReVenge said:

Part of being a good player is building the right list. List composition plays a huge role. I would say 50% is list composition and 50% is player skill.

There is nothing wrong with taking a different approach to competing in a tournament. Even if it’s against the standard of what’s “best”. If that player is able to show the community through results that their way works best then I’m sure the community will adapt and players opinions will change. But until that happens, I’ll believe what the best are doing.

If a list wins a tournament, then you can believe that it isn’t “proof” of it being good. But I’m going to. There is a reason several elite players brought lists that looked similar... draw your own conclusions and I will mine. It’s also important to note that I’m drawing conclusions from my actual experience and experience of my local gaming community. 

Think of a garrison building as a building where units can enter (it has a roof) and shoot out of via windows. I have a few of them on my Tatooine board. 

List building is only meaningful insofar as it leads to countering the most prevalent opposition; there’s little case to be made that that has made an impact on tournaments to date.

Things are not good or bad because of the person who chooses them. Just because a winning list happened to have X in it doesn’t make X intrinsically good.

Consider, this: How many lists took X and still lost?

[gothound 60]

Start a thread with the sentence "so this dosent turn into a mess like last time"

It still turns into a mess like last time.

I think the air speeder is forever coated in skub

[R3dReVenge 441]

1 hour ago, Derrault said:

List building is only meaningful insofar as it leads to countering the most prevalent opposition; there’s little case to be made that that has made an impact on tournaments to date.

Things are not good or bad because of the person who chooses them. Just because a winning list happened to have X in it doesn’t make X intrinsically good.

Consider, this: How many lists took X and still lost?

Based off of this then we should be seeing the Speeder because it has “high durability” and these lists weren’t running much impact... yet no speeders in sight. I wonder why.....

The problem with this argument is there can only be one winner. Instead we should be looking at the top 8 and what made them successful. It’s very clear. 

[TauntaunScout 4,276]

What other units didn’t turn up in winning lists?

What units were in the losing lists?

[R3dReVenge 441]

1 hour ago, TauntaunScout said:

What other units didn’t turn up in winning lists?

What units were in the losing lists?

https://thefifthtrooper.com/worlds-2019-the-lists/

[Derrault 1,091]

 

1 hour ago, TauntaunScout said:

What other units didn’t turn up in winning lists?

What units were in the losing lists?

100% of the Rebel lists ran Luke and Leia, all lost. By the illogic that Reds using, no one should play Rebels, because they didn’t win right?

Here's a list of all the available units NOT used in any of the 8 lists:

Rebels:
Han Solo
Jyn Erso
Rebel Officer (unit)
Chewbacca

1.4 FD Laser Cannon
AT-RT

Pathfinders
Rebel Commandos (non-strike team)
Wookie Warriors

X-34
T-47

Imperials:
Vader
Imperial Officer (unit)

E-web Heavy Blaster
74z Speeder Bikes

Scout Troopers (non-strike team; and Sonic Charges)

GAVw Occupier Combat Assault Tank
AT-ST

 

Iirc the tourneys that seeded into that were fairly homogenous as well. 

[R3dReVenge 441]

2 minutes ago, Derrault said:

 

100% of the Rebel lists ran Luke and Leia, all lost. By the illogic that Reds using, no one should play Rebels, because they didn’t win right?

Here's a list of all the available units NOT used in any of the 8 lists:

Rebels:
Han Solo
Jyn Erso
Rebel Officer (unit)
Chewbacca

1.4 FD Laser Cannon
AT-RT

Pathfinders
Rebel Commandos (non-strike team)
Wookie Warriors

X-34
T-47

Imperials:
Vader
Imperial Officer (unit)

E-web Heavy Blaster
74z Speeder Bikes

Scout Troopers (non-strike team; and Sonic Charges)

GAVw Occupier Combat Assault Tank
AT-ST

 

Iirc the tourneys that seeded into that were fairly homogenous as well. 

Gotta love when people take a concept and take it to the extreme to the point where it isn’t anything close to what I had stated ahahahah. It just shows how lost you are bud.

How does the top 8 form? Can you answer this question for me.

 

[Derrault 1,091]

31 minutes ago, R3dReVenge said:

Gotta love when people take a concept and take it to the extreme to the point where it isn’t anything close to what I had stated ahahahah. It just shows how lost you are bud.

How does the top 8 form? Can you answer this question for me.

 

The top 8 players don’t, necessarily, run the exact same lists they won with; also, you yourself said it didn’t matter:

4 hours ago, R3dReVenge said:

The problem with this argument is there can only be one winner. Instead we should be looking at the top 8 and what made them successful. It’s very clear.

If you are really interested, go back and look at the lower level tourneys, for some of them there was available data, the lists were, as I said, pretty well homogenous.

[armada439 18]

To the ongoing debate, I’ll just throw this out there:

I am terrible at this game, but I’ve never lost to a list with the T47 in it. 

 

On topic:

I still don’t think the 47 would be good with barrage either, it might devastate rebs and droids. But I think it’d still be bad against empire and republic. Even if a barrage were a  free add-on it still costs too much. You can get 2 or 3 kitted units of anything else for 175.

Would a 47 with barrage be fun to play? Undoubtedly, but it wouldn’t be competitive. Which is fine, not everything has to be worlds worthy. People are allowed to play fun lists too.

[R3dReVenge 441]

2 hours ago, Derrault said:

The top 8 players don’t, necessarily, run the exact same lists they won with; also, you yourself said it didn’t matter:

If you are really interested, go back and look at the lower level tourneys, for some of them there was available data, the lists were, as I said, pretty well homogenous.

When did I say the top 8 didn't matter?

Top 8 results are the most important results when looking at a tournament. These are the lists + players that beat out the competition. Now, it varies based on the tournament format and game of choice, but usually top 8 lists provide a lot of information regarding the current meta. 

That's why it isn't shocking that they all look fairly similar. These meta lists beat out all the diverse lists running the other toys (T47, ATST, etc). They do a darn good job at winning. 

[R3dReVenge 441]

1 hour ago, armada439 said:

To the ongoing debate, I’ll just throw this out there:

I am terrible at this game, but I’ve never lost to a list with the T47 in it. 

 

On topic:

I still don’t think the 47 would be good with barrage either, it might devastate rebs and droids. But I think it’d still be bad against empire and republic. Even if a barrage were a  free add-on it still costs too much. You can get 2 or 3 kitted units of anything else for 175.

Would a 47 with barrage be fun to play? Undoubtedly, but it wouldn’t be competitive. Which is fine, not everything has to be worlds worthy. People are allowed to play fun lists too.

Majority of the community will reinforce your feelings on the T47. It's an overpriced vehicle that lacks durability with good damage potential. But due to it's high cost, and low survivability (10 crits to kill), the vehicle is very risky to run in a competitive scene. Hence why we don't see any in the top 8 at worlds (or why I haven't seen any in the tournament lists at my local store). 

I'm hoping for a complete redo of the speeder's rules. Reduce damage output, cost, and give it more 'tricks' + keywords.

[Derrault 1,091]

9 hours ago, R3dReVenge said:

When did I say the top 8 didn't matter?

Top 8 results are the most important results when looking at a tournament. These are the lists + players that beat out the competition. Now, it varies based on the tournament format and game of choice, but usually top 8 lists provide a lot of information regarding the current meta. 

That's why it isn't shocking that they all look fairly similar. These meta lists beat out all the diverse lists running the other toys (T47, ATST, etc). They do a darn good job at winning. 

You’ve missed the point entirely. 

Its not that those lists are empirically good at anything, it’s that, empirically, those are the only lists that get entered into the tournament.

If you only enter list type Z then only list type Z can win; potential list types A-Y never actually got a chance. 

[lunitic501 302]

[R3dReVenge 441]

1 hour ago, Derrault said:

You’ve missed the point entirely. 

Its not that those lists are empirically good at anything, it’s that, empirically, those are the only lists that get entered into the tournament.

If you only enter list type Z then only list type Z can win; potential list types A-Y never actually got a chance. 

I'll repeat my question: How does the top 8 form? 

Now, I don't now how much competitive play you have, so i'll answer this question for you. Typically, the top 8 forms from the best 8 performing players. These are the players that have beaten out the rest of the competition. This is one of the reasons why you don't see types A-Y in the top 8 results. Types A-Y aren't as optimized therefore they performed worst at this tournament.

It isn't a coincidence that the top 8 lists all looked very similar (activation spam + sniper spam). 

If you can't understand this concept, then I cannot help you. 

 

Edit: Remember what I said earlier. Lists with type A-Y could be viable in casual play (Why the T-47 sees play). Play what you want and have fun with the game. But competitively, it's pretty clear what the best, optimized lists look like. Now this can change, but we will have to wait until more tournament results are available. 

Edited August 19, 2019 by R3dReVenge