34 minutes ago, Derrault said:

That sounds akin to a similar situation in Football, where coaches are reluctant to do the statistically advantageous move on 4-1, but instead punt because that’s just what has always been done.

They’d rather lose a game, doing an orthodox move, even though victory pretty much is contained only in the unorthodox one.

And yeah, if you don’t have data to support it, you can’t say you really know anything at all.

Except we have plenty of data to support it. We have an entire year of people playing the T47, deciding that its absolute crap and sharing that information online for all of us to see. Additionally, nearly every one of us has personal experience playing either with or against the model, often extensively. There is a near universal consensus that the T47 is somewhere between underpowered and unplayable, with most of the community leaning toward the later.

22 minutes ago, Derrault said:

And yeah, if you don’t have data to support it, you can’t say you really know anything at all  .

You don't actually believe that do you?

Lack of data can mean several things, and you can isolate the causality if you know the environmental conditions at play. This time last year you could say that the lack of any real competitive play means you can't ascertain what units are competitively viable, and you'd be right. Fast forward a year and the T-47 isn't seen in any significant quantity in any competition circuit despite having plenty of opportunities to do so. Why? You're answer indicates that we can't know because it isn't used, which brings us back to the beginning of the question of why isn't it used? I see two possibilities for any given unit in this game when it doesn't see competitive play:

1. The unit is new and players aren't comfortable using it yet. This is likely the case with Jyn and Pathfinders at LVO.

2. The unit is older and doesn't see play because it isn't as good as other options or is too situational to be useful against a variety of lists. Historically the heavies have fallen into this category.

9 minutes ago, thepopemobile100 said:

You don't actually believe that do you?

Lack of data can mean several things, and you can isolate the causality if you know the environmental conditions at play. This time last year you could say that the lack of any real competitive play means you can't ascertain what units are competitively viable, and you'd be right. Fast forward a year and the T-47 isn't seen in any significant quantity in any competition circuit despite having plenty of opportunities to do so. Why? You're answer indicates that we can't know because it isn't used, which brings us back to the beginning of the question of why isn't it used? I see two possibilities for any given unit in this game when it doesn't see competitive play:

1. The unit is new and players aren't comfortable using it yet. This is likely the case with Jyn and Pathfinders at LVO.

2. The unit is older and doesn't see play because it isn't as good as other options or is too situational to be useful against a variety of lists. Historically the heavies have fallen into this category.

It’s not a question of belief, between the LVO, NOVA, and apparently now Adepticon, there have been reported only 2 lists even bothered to try a T-47. That’s basically as good as no information at all, especially without substantial ability to analyze those games (ie setup, opponent lists, and player use: were obvious mistakes made? Failure attributable to rolls off the bell curve? Etc)

Again, without data, there’s no plausible attribution to the question of how good a 47 is, because there’s no data.

An obvious alternative to the two possibilities you’ve listed is simple bias. Players didn’t take them because they don’t believe (again, in the total absence of actual proof; and that cannot be emphasized enough) that they won’t be successful in a tournament.

12 minutes ago, Jake the Hutt said:

Except we have plenty of data to support it. We have an entire year of people playing the T47, deciding that its absolute crap and sharing that information online for all of us to see. Additionally, nearly every one of us has personal experience playing either with or against the model, often extensively. There is a near universal consensus that the T47 is somewhere between underpowered and unplayable, with most of the community leaning toward the later.

A) That doesn’t sound like a tournament, which was exactly what Senjuis, with no apparent basis.

B) Again, where’s the proof? Opinions don’t constitute proof ‘anywhere’.

The proof is in every single post that states "The T-47 problem". This specific unit has more negative things said about it than all the others for several, clearly explained reasons. If you don't get that by this point, I don't think there is much we can do to help.

9 minutes ago, Derrault said:

It’s not a question of belief, between the LVO, NOVA, and apparently now Adepticon, there have been reported only 2 lists even bothered to try a T-47. That’s basically as good as no information at all, especially without substantial ability to analyze those games (ie setup, opponent lists, and player use: were obvious mistakes made? Failure attributable to rolls off the bell curve? Etc)

Again, without data, there’s no plausible attribution to the question of how good a 47 is, because there’s no data.

An obvious alternative to the two possibilities you’ve listed is simple bias. Players didn’t take them because they don’t believe (again, in the total absence of actual proof; and that cannot be emphasized enough) that they won’t be successful in a tournament.

Again, lack of data can still tell you information. We don't see any relevant placings for the T-47 which can tell us a couple of things. The first is that it might have been run poorly and performed poorly as a result. The second is one we'll be able to gather when it doesn't show up to Worlds as it's an invitational the requires good performance in a prior tournament to be invited: that is that the T-47 isn't viable competitively. If it was viable, someone would use it effectively at Worlds.

Instead of kicking your feet about how "good" a unit is that literally every other rebel player has determined to be bad, go enter in these events and prove that you're right. If you can make your way to Worlds next year, I'll personally fly to where you live, apologize, and buy you an expansion of your choice.

1 hour ago, TalkPolite said:

The proof is in every single post that states "The T-47 problem". This specific unit has more negative things said about it than all the others for several, clearly explained reasons. If you don't get that by this point, I don't think there is much we can do to help.

Again, your opinion does not constitute proof on a matter of fact , nor will it ever. That’s now how proof works. The apparent incapacity for you to understand this doesn’t change that.

1 hour ago, thepopemobile100 said:

Again, lack of data can still tell you information. We don't see any relevant placings for the T-47 which can tell us a couple of things. The first is that it might have been run poorly and performed poorly as a result. The second is one we'll be able to gather when it doesn't show up to Worlds as it's an invitational the requires good performance in a prior tournament to be invited: that is that the T-47 isn't viable competitively. If it was viable, someone would use it effectively at Worlds.

Instead of kicking your feet about how "good" a unit is that literally every other rebel player has determined to be bad, go enter in these events and prove that you're right. If you can make your way to Worlds next year, I'll personally fly to where you live, apologize, and buy you an expansion of your choice.

You’re employing a fallacy of logic here Pope, the absence of a unit says literally nothing about the unit, it only says something about the preferences of those who happened to attend those tournaments ran contrary to including it.

If you want to ask ‘Why?’ It could be any reason at all; but if Talkpolite is any indicator, base prejudice actually seems like a pretty good prima facie reason. It doesn’t seem like any of the naysayers have actually run the unit, nor had it run against them. Then they go and make apparently spurious claims about its validity in tournaments after playing literally no one using it.

Although I appreciate your offer to buy me things, issuing a challenge for me personally to go to worlds entirely misses the point I’m making. It’s not about any one player, it’s taking a look at the landscape of lists employed.

There’s not enough representation to credibly claim that the 47 is uncompetitive, rather than simply unused.

Consider this: 62% of the lists at LVO were using Strike Teams. When you see that the top 8 are filled with them, does that really mean that the teams are good in and of themselves, or just inevitable by dint of ubiquity? It would be more surprising if none of the top 8 had those units, rather than just a no duh.

1 hour ago, Derrault said:

Again, your opinion does not constitute proof on a matter of fact , nor will it ever. That’s now how proof works. The apparent incapacity for you to understand this doesn’t change that.

You’re employing a fallacy of logic here Pope, the absence of a unit says literally nothing about the unit, it only says something about the preferences of those who happened to attend those tournaments ran contrary to including it.

If you want to ask ‘Why?’ It could be any reason at all; but if Talkpolite is any indicator, base prejudice actually seems like a pretty good prima facie reason. It doesn’t seem like any of the naysayers have actually run the unit, nor had it run against them. Then they go and make apparently spurious claims about its validity in tournaments after playing literally no one using it.

Although I appreciate your offer to buy me things, issuing a challenge for me personally to go to worlds entirely misses the point I’m making. It’s not about any one player, it’s taking a look at the landscape of lists employed.

There’s not enough representation to credibly claim that the 47 is uncompetitive, rather than simply unused.

Consider this: 62% of the lists at LVO were using Strike Teams. When you see that the top 8 are filled with them, does that really mean that the teams are good in and of themselves, or just inevitable by dint of ubiquity? It would be more surprising if none of the top 8 had those units, rather than just a no duh.

You don't have to Bring a unit to an American tournament to test it. Most People who play with the airspeeder reports the same lack of effektivness and low impact for it's point cost.

4 hours ago, jocke01 said:

You don't have to Bring a unit to an American tournament to test it. Most People who play with the airspeeder reports the same lack of effektivness and low impact for it's point cost.

Where is this anecdotal data being reported and collated? Who ensures that the boards were stocked according to the FFG guidelines? Checks to see if it’s not just the player rather than their unit?

Oh, it’s nobody right?

If more than 60% of lists at LVO (and other tournaments) were running heavies the same way they’re running strike teams, We have no reason to doubt that the top 8 would pretty much be all lists with heavies.

If they still weren’t, then it would be more reasonable to draw a conclusion there. But we don’t even have that to work with.

6 hours ago, Derrault said:

You’re employing a fallacy of logic here Pope, the absence of a unit says literally nothing about the unit, it only says something about the preferences of those who happened to attend those tournaments ran contrary to including it. 

If you want to ask ‘Why?’ It could be any reason at all; but if Talkpolite is any indicator, base prejudice actually seems like a pretty good prima facie reason. It doesn’t seem like any of the naysayers have actually run the unit, nor had it run against them. Then they go and make apparently spurious claims about its validity in tournaments after playing literally no one using it.

That operates under the assumption that every unit is well balanced and has a real chance in a competitive environment of being used, which isn't the case here. Every rebel player who bought into the game when it came out has one or two T-47s, and we were all excited to try it out. Turns out that it performed poorly. There's plenty on this forum alone showing how disappointed players were with it's performance. If it had potential, someone at some point in the past year would have found and demonstrated it.

That hasn't happened, and it isn't due to lack of trying. Every rebel player at the tournaments have tried using the T-47 on their spare time, and like everyone else they found it to be bad. Frankly the only person who doesn't seem to have actually used it is you, and you can't prove that you've ran it against a decent player either. But you'd never admit to being wrong.

6 hours ago, Derrault said:

There’s not enough representation to credibly claim that the 47 is uncompetitive, rather than simply unused.

Consider this: 62% of the lists at LVO were using Strike Teams. When you see that the top 8 are filled with them, does that really mean that the teams are good in and of themselves, or just inevitable by dint of ubiquity? It would be more surprising if none of the top 8 had those units, rather than just a no duh

Again, we've all used the thing. We don't need information from a tournament to know it isn't good. You're just in denial about it for whatever reason. Maybe actually play the game for once, and then report back.

The fact that 62% ran strike teams is irrelevant as all relevant placing used them. 62% usage of a unit is unlikely to fill all placing slots in a tournament setting.

53 minutes ago, Derrault said:

If more than 60% of lists at LVO (and other tournaments) were running heavies the same way they’re running strike teams, We have no reason to doubt that the top 8 would pretty much be all lists with heavies

Except we do for rebel lists because the T-47 still isn't good. You haven't shown that. The only thing you've shown ever on this forum is that you have no game sense.

11 minutes ago, thepopemobile100 said:

That operates under the assumption that every unit is well balanced and has a real chance in a competitive environment of being used, which isn't the case here. Every rebel player who bought into the game when it came out has one or two T-47s, and we were all excited to try it out. Turns out that it performed poorly. There's plenty on this forum alone showing how disappointed players were with it's performance. If it had potential, someone at some point in the past year would have found and demonstrated it.

That hasn't happened, and it isn't due to lack of trying. Every rebel player at the tournaments have tried using the T-47 on their spare time, and like everyone else they found it to be bad. Frankly the only person who doesn't seem to have actually used it is you, and you can't prove that you've ran it against a decent player either. But you'd never admit to being wrong.

Again, we've all used the thing. We don't need information from a tournament to know it isn't good. You're just in denial about it for whatever reason. Maybe actually play the game for once, and then report back.

The fact that 62% ran strike teams is irrelevant as all relevant placing used them. 62% usage of a unit is unlikely to fill all placing slots in a tournament setting.

Except we do for rebel lists because the T-47 still isn't good. You haven't shown that. The only thing you've shown ever on this forum is that you have no game sense.

Even assuming everyone bought all the units to their limit (and if we’re using the forum as a guide, that’s false), list building necessarily means forgoing something in favor of something. If you don’t choose to bring Palpatine, but instead bring Veers, it doesn’t mean you think that Palpatine is bad, only that you wanted to bring Veers.

Not taking the T-47 doesn’t actually mean what you seem to think it means.

Secondly, there has absolutely been a noted use for the 47, it’s both fast intercept and heavy cavalry through and through. Sorry you missed the memo?

Third, if the claim is that it’s not good, by virtue of tournaments, then yes, you need to prove that statement, and you have no proof.

1 minute ago, Derrault said:

Even assuming everyone bought all the units to their limit (and if we’re using the forum as a guide, that’s false), list building necessarily means forgoing something in favor of something. If you don’t choose to bring Palpatine, but instead bring Veers, it doesn’t mean you think that Palpatine is bad, only that you wanted to bring Veers.

Not taking the T-47 doesn’t actually mean what you seem to think it means.

Secondly, there has absolutely been a noted use for the 47, it’s both fast intercept and heavy cavalry through and through. Sorry you missed the memo?

Third, if the claim is that it’s not good, by virtue of tournaments, then yes, you need to prove that statement, and you have no proof.

Except that's still wrong. Every unit except some of the very recent ones and the 47 have had tournament time. The new stuff is new, so it gets a free pass. 47 doesn't have that. Not taking it doesn't say much, but NOBODY taking it in the tournament setting tells everyone but you, go figure, that there's something wrong with the unit.

Listing a use for it doesn't make it good at that use. Ignoring heavies started up because the 47 is that bad.

The proof is in the absence of use. If it was good, someone at those tournaments would've figured that out and used it effectively. Your claim is that it is good, and you lack proof of that. Go prove it instead of throwing a tantrum on the internet.

3 minutes ago, thepopemobile100 said:

Except that's still wrong. Every unit except some of the very recent ones and the 47 have had tournament time. The new stuff is new, so it gets a free pass. 47 doesn't have that. Not taking it doesn't say much, but NOBODY taking it in the tournament setting tells everyone but you, go figure, that there's something wrong with the unit.

Listing a use for it doesn't make it good at that use. Ignoring heavies started up because the 47 is that bad.

The proof is in the absence of use. If it was good, someone at those tournaments would've figured that out and used it effectively. Your claim is that it is good, and you lack proof of that. Go prove it instead of throwing a tantrum on the internet.

I’m right actually, you’ve presented zero evidence, and keep on ramming into the idea most stubbornly.

Your individual failure doesn’t mean the part is bad, any more than someone who spouts off claiming their dice roll “badly” for them.

Absence of use does not constitute evidence of a particular cause, for exactly the reasons given. It’s a basic fallacy, like ad hominem.

I’m sorry, but the fact that I have collected data from near 1000 games over this last year should be enough to prove my point, and it is. Three seasons of Invader League, LVO, and Adepticon with declining numbers of players using the T-47 is enough for me to make the call. You simply don’t have access to the number of players I do and it’s very telling.

Not to mention my own personal experiences continuously playing opponents who enjoy using them (which results in continuous wins for me and their other opponents). The data is right in front of me, and I see it in every local, national, and international event I run and attend.

I’m sure we can start pulling the collective data of T-47 users just to prove the point, but it wouldn’t be worth it just to prove you wrong.

4 minutes ago, TalkPolite said:

I’m sorry, but the fact that I have collected data from near 1000 games over this last year should be enough to prove my point, and it is. Three seasons of Invader League, LVO, and Adepticon with declining numbers of players using the T-47 is enough for me to make the call. You simply don’t have access to the number of players I do and it’s very telling.

Not to mention my own personal experiences continuously playing opponents who enjoy using them (which results in continuous wins for me and their other opponents). The data is right in front of me, and I see it in every local, national, and international event I run and attend.

I’m sure we can start pulling the collective data of T-47 users just to prove the point, but it wouldn’t be worth it just to prove you wrong.

The FFG tournaments so far don’t actually support anything you’ve said.

So, yes, go ahead and prove your claim.

Also, has it really never occurred to you that you’re just a better player than your opponents if you continuously defeat them?

Yes, but the Invader ones do. Many players have ran T-47s with none of those making it into the single eliminations. You might skip right over it, but the non-FFG tournaments count because those are the test beds for official ones. People run stuff there, realize there are better options, and op to not use them.

Sure, but one of the points I made above is that I’ve won games simply because my opponent chose to bring the T-47. Ive also lost games to the same people when they don’t - which is probably why I qualified for worlds. Myself and many others spent time playing against and with every option.

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

Course another relatively easy fix would be some comms and/or hardpoint upgrades that are T-47 only. But that gets weird because you'd have to figure out what product(s) to include them in.

8 hours ago, TauntaunScout said:

... But that gets weird because you'd have to figure out what product(s) to include them in.

A Hoth themed Commander (Rieerkan?).

Or a special scenario box that contains alt sculpts of Leia, Han & Luke in their Hoth outfits.

(if either were to be the case, they should include at least two copies of whatever the buff is)

10 hours ago, Derrault said:

I’m right actually, you’ve presented zero evidence, and keep on ramming into the idea most stubbornly.

Your individual failure doesn’t mean the part is bad, any more than someone who spouts off claiming their dice roll “badly” for them.

Absence of use does not constitute evidence of a particular cause, for exactly the reasons given. It’s a basic fallacy, like ad hominem.

While it is true that absence of use does not constitute evidence of a particular cause, it is true that it is often a reflection of a particular cause. You are claiming that because it doesn't appear at the highest levels of play, the T-47 hasn't been tested. This seems unlikely, especially considering the amount of personal testimony, blogs/videos, and statistical analysis that all indicate the community has spent a great deal of time trying with the T-47. This seems to imply instead that it is indeed a reflection of the T-47's effectiveness relative to its cost.

The T-47 and its dearth in competitive play seems, to me, to be analogous to unusually short basketball players in the NBA. Short players aren't prevalent at the highest levels of basketball, not because nobody will give them a shot, but because they experience less success in the myriad opportunities they are afforded at the lower levels, so they don't make the cut to the "final round" very often. In a similar fashion, the T-47 has been tried locally by many in run-ups to tournament play, it generally under-performs its competition, and in the end only a few T-47 lists, if any, make the cut.

People were trying it, and it wasn't working out, so they stopped trying to use it when winning actually mattered. Maybe the new pilot will help with that, and maybe it won't, but to keep pretending that it just hasn't been given a fair shake to date seems silly to me. Every person commenting seems to be implying that they have tried it. I know I have, extensively. I have used it in about half of my games (sometimes even two of them) because I love flying it. It has yet to impress me, it generally hinders me, I don't think it is good at all (particularly due to objective problems), but I fly it at home and with friends because it is fun to use.

I would never fly it if I were planning on attending a tournament.

Now that cover-2 is available to counter DLT-spam I may have to test it some more and see if it is appreciably boosted. Pre cover-2 it was simply not good.

You want to make the T-47 relevant? Give it a target it's uniquely suited for!

@Jake the Hutt
"Except we have plenty of data to support it. We have an entire year of people playing the T47, deciding that its absolute crap and sharing that information online for all of us to see. Additionally, nearly every one of us has personal experience playing either with or against the model, often extensively. There is a near universal consensus that the T47 is somewhere between underpowered and unplayable, with most of the community leaning toward the later."

There are 4 threads in the Battle reports forum that list the T-47 and make comments about it.

Unambiguously Positive:

On the fence:

(Six critical hits with zero blocks says this is a mulligan)

@TalkPolite
"Yes, but the Invader ones do. Many players have ran T-47s with none of those making it into the single eliminations. You might skip right over it, but the non-FFG tournaments count because those are the test beds for official ones. People run stuff there, realize there are better options, and op to not use them."

Thank you for linking the league stats, I appreciate it, and I'll post after reviewing.

I can only find the outcomes for players in the round robin, but not their lists? Are only the single elimination lists counted? Also, nothing for season 1?

"Sure, but one of the points I made above is that I’ve won games simply because my opponent chose to bring the T-47. Ive also lost games to the same people when they don’t - which is probably why I qualified for worlds. Myself and many others spent time playing against and with every option."

I'm not sure I follow you here...why would you losing to people who did not bring the 47 lead to you getting into worlds?

How are those two things related?

@Jedhead

There’s actually a dearth if statistical analysis containing T-47 lists. That’s my whole point, if nobody runs them in a systematic way, how can you claim they’re bad? On the basis of anecdotes?

That’s just ridiculous.

26 minutes ago, Derrault said:

@Jedhead

There’s actually a dearth if statistical analysis containing T-47 lists. That’s my whole point, if nobody runs them in a systematic way, how can you claim they’re bad? On the basis of anecdotes?

That’s just ridiculous.

I submit that you are conflating "ridiculous" with "reasonable, but not proven." My premise that the T-47 is bad is not proven in an "innocent until proven guilty" sort of way, but the circumstantial evidence has led me to a reasonable conclusion given the information we currently possess combined with my personal experience.

I claim it is a bad investment in a point-based game because (as I mentioned in my post) I have run it. I have run it a lot. I can't give you the exact numbers, because I have not kept them for all of my games, but I can tell you that I do much, much better when I do not run it. What would be ridiculous is for me to claim it is good in the face of that evidence and what I see from others. We don't have systematic data, but I have my personal experience, and until systematic data proves me wrong, it is reasonable to follow my experience.

Furthermore, this has also been the experience of everyone else that I know. This has also been the experience of almost every person on this forum. Alone, you might dismiss any one of us as an anecdote, and even a few would seem reasonable to discount if you had evidence to the contrary. When you take into account all of the anecdotes, the T-47's absence from top lists, the fact that it can't break into a meta that doesn't even favor running its true counter (heavier impact and ion weapons), its statistical inferiority on per-point metrics, its failure at the Las Vegas Open and in Invader League, etc...

You can claim the evidence is anecdotal. I look at it all alongside my personal experiences with it and conclude that the evidence points overwhelmingly toward a specific conclusion. It is bad. This is a perfectly reasonable conclusion to reach based on all of the above evidence, even if it has not been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. I suspect if a statistical analysis was possible at this stage it would confirm my opinion. It seems much more illogical from my standpoint to suppose that if we were able to suddenly tabulate all early T-47 games we would discover that everything I mentioned above got it completely wrong, as did my personal experience.

Do you, by the way, have any data of systematic use that suggests they are in a great spot as you claim them to be? I suspect you do not, but as I love using the T-47 and love its model, I welcome any information regarding lists that show its effectiveness if they are out there.

1 hour ago, Jedhead said:

I submit that you are conflating "ridiculous" with "reasonable, but not proven." My premise that the T-47 is bad is not proven in an "innocent until proven guilty" sort of way, but the circumstantial evidence has led me to a reasonable conclusion given the information we currently possess combined with my personal experience.

I claim it is a bad investment in a point-based game because (as I mentioned in my post) I have run it. I have run it a lot. I can't give you the exact numbers, because I have not kept them for all of my games, but I can tell you that I do much, much better when I do not run it. What would be ridiculous is for me to claim it is good in the face of that evidence and what I see from others. We don't have systematic data, but I have my personal experience, and until systematic data proves me wrong, it is reasonable to follow my experience.

Furthermore, this has also been the experience of everyone else that I know. This has also been the experience of almost every person on this forum. Alone, you might dismiss any one of us as an anecdote, and even a few would seem reasonable to discount if you had evidence to the contrary. When you take into account all of the anecdotes, the T-47's absence from top lists, the fact that it can't break into a meta that doesn't even favor running its true counter (heavier impact and ion weapons), its statistical inferiority on per-point metrics, its failure at the Las Vegas Open and in Invader League, etc...

You can claim the evidence is anecdotal. I look at it all alongside my personal experiences with it and conclude that the evidence points overwhelmingly toward a specific conclusion. It is bad. This is a perfectly reasonable conclusion to reach based on all of the above evidence, even if it has not been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. I suspect if a statistical analysis was possible at this stage it would confirm my opinion. It seems much more illogical from my standpoint to suppose that if we were able to suddenly tabulate all early T-47 games we would discover that everything I mentioned above got it completely wrong, as did my personal experience.

Do you, by the way, have any data of systematic use that suggests they are in a great spot as you claim them to be? I suspect you do not, but as I love using the T-47 and love its model, I welcome any information regarding lists that show its effectiveness if they are out there.

See, here’s the thing.

Anecdotes feel real compelling, because they’re personal. That’s why they are persuasive despite being error prone. They feel good, even though relying on them is the exact opposite of reason.

People like to think they’re good at x, y, z, and have a good sense of judgment about their own capabilities, but the hard truth is that humans are simply terrible at guesstimating thing.

Hard numbers? That’s compelling. Anecdotes aren’t worth the breath it took to say them or the bytes to type.

Edit: My position is that no inference can be drawn owing to a lack of data; my personal experience is that T-47s are quite useful. But as I said, anecdotes are worthless when it comes to science.

The answer to your question was apparently no Jed

1 hour ago, Derrault said:

See, here’s the thing.

Anecdotes feel real compelling, because they’re personal. That’s why they are persuasive despite being error prone. They feel good, even though relying on them is the exact opposite of reason.

People like to think they’re good at x, y, z, and have a good sense of judgment about their own capabilities, but the hard truth is that humans are simply terrible at guesstimating thing.

Hard numbers? That’s compelling. Anecdotes aren’t worth the breath it took to say them or the bytes to type.

Edit: My position is that no inference can be drawn owing to a lack of data; my personal experience is that T-47s are quite useful. But as I said, anecdotes are worthless when it comes to science.

I agree with you that no inference can be drawn from a lack of data alone. I also agree with you that anecdotes alone are not enough. In fact, those two factors alone are not significant if we have no other evidence.

We do have some data, though. As I mentioned, it is terrible from a per-point analysis of cost-effectiveness. It has done extremely poorly in tournaments and league play every time it has been taken. I would like more data, I really would. Clearly you would as well. However, you are completely ignoring the data we have. What we do have indicates that it has been very bad in competitive play, and that as you move "up" in tournament play it appears less and less as the tournaments get more competitive and skilled. That is indisputable. The sample size is small, but it is very, very bad for the T-47.

Alone, a small sample size like this is negligible. What I am suggesting is that anecdotes, personal experience, the analysis of the unit itself, and the existing data (though limited), all stack up to exactly what we would expect: it doesn't get played at serious tournaments.

You are free to wonder why, as we have not met your criteria for scientific observation. I, however, suspect I know why.

I don't need a scientific study to tell me that poop stinks.

1 hour ago, Jedhead said:

I agree with you that no inference can be drawn from a lack of data alone. I also agree with you that anecdotes alone are not enough. In fact, those two factors alone are not significant if we have no other evidence.

We do have some data, though. As I mentioned, it is terrible from a per-point analysis of cost-effectiveness . It has done extremely poorly in tournaments and league play every time it has been taken. I would like more data, I really would. Clearly you would as well. However, you are completely ignoring the data we have. What we do have indicates that it has been very bad in competitive play, and that as you move "up" in tournament play it appears less and less as the tournaments get more competitive and skilled. That is indisputable. The sample size is small, but it is very, very bad for the T-47.

Alone, a small sample size like this is negligible. What I am suggesting is that anecdotes, personal experience, the analysis of the unit itself, and the existing data (though limited), all stack up to exactly what we would expect: it doesn't get played at serious tournaments.

You are free to wonder why, as we have not met your criteria for scientific observation. I, however, suspect I know why.

I don't need a scientific study to tell me that poop stinks.

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.