3 hours ago, Irokenics said:

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

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.

That doesn’t make any sense.

My approval or disapproval has nothing to do with the validity of anything. I wouldn’t want to lead you into a false logical argument: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

This: 2x T-47, 3x Tauntaun Riders, 1x Rebel Officer, 1x Rebel Veterans, 2x Rebel Troopers. 798 points no upgrades.

10 hours ago, Irokenics said:

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

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.

9 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:

This: 2x T-47, 3x Tauntaun Riders, 1x Rebel Officer, 1x Rebel Veterans, 2x Rebel Troopers. 798 points no upgrades.

Come now, some of those models aren't out yet and I don't do TTS.

@Irokenics

Your first mistake was posting on a T-47 thread; a mistake everyone here is guilty of making.

Your second mistake was trying to get a straight answer to a simple question from Derrault.

10 minutes ago, thepopemobile100 said:

@Irokenics

Your first mistake was posting on a T-47 thread; a mistake everyone here is guilty of making.

Your second mistake was trying to get a straight answer to a simple question from Derrault.

My other mistake was tapping a T-47 and a landspeeder on Tabletop Admiral, not two T-47’s. I can’t actually fit two in my list

39 minutes ago, thepopemobile100 said:

@Irokenics

Your first mistake was posting on a T-47 thread; a mistake everyone here is guilty of making.

Your second mistake was trying to get a straight answer to a simple question from Derrault.

I have two reasons:

First, the one I gave, that I don’t want to begin another argument off some false premise (ie that my personal opinion is the bees knees and constitutes truth because “I’m an authority” on the matter).

Second, although I do very much have a list I plan to run, it’s in my best interests that the meta remain one that can’t actually deal with vehicles.

Just chiming in to bask in the mild and petty validation of the community coming around on this one.

I was trying to make all these arguments for how garbage the T47 was back when the core set released, and there was a lot more delusion back then.

This looks a lot like someone saying "the polling data is wrong; you've gotta do it state by state"

37 minutes ago, GreatMazinkaiser said:

This looks a lot like someone saying "the polling data is wrong; you've gotta do it state by state"

I thought I was confused trying to follow this thread before... What does even mean?! 🤣

7 hours ago, thepopemobile100 said:

@Irokenics

Your first mistake was posting on a T-47 thread; a mistake everyone here is guilty of making.

Your second mistake was trying to get a straight answer to a simple question from Derrault.

Lol. So true.

8 hours ago, Derrault said:

I have two reasons:

First, the one I gave, that I don’t want to begin another argument off some false premise (ie that my personal opinion is the bees knees and constitutes truth because “I’m an authority” on the matter).

Wasn't saying you're the authority. Just wanted emulate your experience that you seem to be projecting about the T47.

8 hours ago, Derrault said:

Second, although I do very much have a list I plan to run, it’s in my best interests that the meta remain one that can’t actually deal with vehicles.

You could've just said that.

Assuming you didn't go to LVO or Adepticon, I hope to hear your about RPQ results.

1 hour ago, Irokenics said:

Lol. So true.

Wasn't saying you're the authority. Just wanted emulate your experience that you seem to be projecting about the T47.

You could've just said that.

Assuming you didn't go to LVO or Adepticon, I hope to hear your about RPQ results.

Sure, I’ll post any postmortem on how it goes individually, win, lose, or draw.

And my position (in case it wasn’t clear) was that there was insufficient data from tournaments to say anything about the effectiveness of the 47 in tournaments (2 lists out of 92 is essentially meaningless when it comes to statistical analysis).

1 hour ago, Derrault said:

2 lists out of 92 is essentially meaningless when it comes to statistical analysis.

Yes, but I think that it is fair to say that it is only chosen twice because of how badly it performs. I did do my RPQ, and 0 T-47s were taken. Interestingly though, 7-8 tanks were taken, and in all of my games that used a tank, I destroyed them in one round. I do not think Vehicles are good right now, and the 47 is just taking a hit because it didn't get any great fixing for it's terrible cost. I am kinda just regurgitating this thread, so I will leave it at that.

On 5/9/2019 at 11:47 AM, Prokins said:

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

Ok. Armada did it fine with the Imperial Star Destroyer. I like big dice pools, I like comboing cards on the ISD, and it is Hyper competitive. Why not all 3 for Legion? I think they had some balencing issues at the beginning of this game and we need to just be ok with it for now as I expect that we will eventually see a fix for them that will make them playable. I will not give an idea of what we will see, because if I say a point reduction, half the people here will agree with me, and the other half will disagree. They will slowly fix things as more factions, cards and expansions come out. I DO expect a "luke" version of the T-47 as well as a Tauntaun scout Han. Alex Davies left this open. Slow change is better than "quick fixes" like X-wing fell into, and X-wing 2.0 seems to be falling into.

1 hour ago, Cleto0 said:

Yes, but I think that it is fair to say that it is only chosen twice because of how badly it performs. I did do my RPQ, and 0 T-47s were taken. Interestingly though, 7-8 tanks were taken, and in all of my games that used a tank, I destroyed them in one round. I do not think Vehicles are good right now, and the 47 is just taking a hit because it didn't get any great fixing for it's terrible cost. I am kinda just regurgitating this thread, so I will leave it at that.

Out of curiousity, what list/units were you using to eliminate the tanks so quickly?

20 hours ago, thepopemobile100 said:

@Irokenics

Your first mistake was posting on a T-47 thread; a mistake everyone here is guilty of making.

Your second mistake was trying to get a straight answer to a simple question from Derrault.

So true.

12 hours ago, Cleto0 said:

Yes, but I think that it is fair to say that it is only chosen twice because of how badly it performs. I did do my RPQ, and 0 T-47s were taken. Interestingly though, 7-8 tanks were taken, and in all of my games that used a tank, I destroyed them in one round. I do not think Vehicles are good right now, and the 47 is just taking a hit because it didn't get any great fixing for it's terrible cost. I am kinda just regurgitating this thread, so I will leave it at that.

Interesting. The RPQ I played this weekend also had 0 T-47s, and a few Occupiers. Ultimately, both the players that took second and third included tanks, and the second place player had two. Probably a fluke, but Occupiers definitely made waves in that tournament.

The poor AT-ST, however, didn't have nearly as strong of a showing.

11 hours ago, Derrault said:

Out of curiousity, what list/units were you using to eliminate the tanks so quickly?

41 minutes ago, Alpha17 said:

Interesting. The RPQ I played this weekend also had 0 T-47s, and a few Occupiers. Ultimately, both the players that took second and third included tanks, and the second place player had two. Probably a fluke, but Occupiers definitely made waves in that tournament.

The poor AT-ST, however, didn't have nearly as strong of a showing.

haha. Same RPQ. Overland Park, Kansas? I think there was a bias towards the tank though because so many lists were running them, they played each other which would mean that they would have to win. The AT-ST, on the other hand, only had one person running it, and it was with a tank and a pretty bad list.

39 minutes ago, Cleto0 said:

haha. Same RPQ. Overland Park, Kansas? I think there was a bias towards the tank though because so many lists were running them, they played each other which would mean that they would have to win. The AT-ST, on the other hand, only had one person running it, and it was with a tank and a pretty bad list.

Haha, indeed it was at Collector's Cache. Small world/internet. Looking over the info from the TTT, it looks like we had 4 people run a total of 5 tanks, and one AT-ST. Two players with the tanks got 2nd and 3rd place, while the other two got 12th and 13th place, with the AT-ST being in the latter list as well. Running the AT-ST with the Occupier might not be the best use of points either. Granted, these placings aren't entirely accurate, (first and second should technically be switched) but here's the info.

https://tabletop.to/star-wars-legion-rallypoint-qualifier2

22 hours ago, Tvayumat said:

Just chiming in to bask in the mild and petty validation of the community coming around on this one.

I was trying to make all these arguments for how garbage the T47 was back when the core set released, and there was a lot more delusion back then.

This was me aswell. I played 10 games with it and quickly came to the conclusion that it was garbage. Made a few posts on here and several users dismissed my comments. I guess the rest have finally caught up...

Wow... this thread. I don’t hang out here much as I usually just paint the models and look at them, while imagining that I will someday play more. I played in one tournament and went 1-2 and didn’t use my T-47. I played one casual game with it and it performed awesomely, although my opponent was very inexperienced.

But more importantly, people just need to learn how to discuss things. First, the options are not “garbage” or “awesome.” As a few people have tried to point out the unit might be situational.

I actually follow the competitive fighting game scene (Street Fighter, Tekken etc.) and these types of discussions are incredibly common and equally (if not more) vitriolic. But arguing over whether something is trash and needs to be improved (buffed) or whether it’s too good and needs to be curtailed (nerfed) is rarely productive. Especially when you have people saying productive things like “just stop. It sucks, everyone knows it sucks.” And while it’s true that some characters are less good than others, it’s also fairly common for someone to show up at a tournament playing a character that everyone knows is terrible and just wreck everybody - because they’ve figured out how to use it. Is that likely to happen with the T-47? Maybe not but I would encourage people not to be so strident about it being terrible.

@Derrault I understand your desire for data. But in my career I’m a research scientist who has moved into risk assessment. What you are doing is exactly what I deal with every day. Scientists always want data. There is never enough data and we dismiss any decision with incomplete data as being arbitrary - since we don’t have all the data. You are interested in research, but we will never have all the data we need to make research conclusions. But pretty much every one else is talking about risk assessment. They have a decision to make (“should I build my list with a T-47”) and they need to make that decision with whatever information is available to them. They generally can’t launch into a research project to validate their decisions. So how do they use the available evidence?

I understand that the “community consensus” is not conclusive evidence. But it’s not nothing either. Instead of considering the flaws in the research technique, ask what these data (because they are data) tell you. At the very least it suggests that a lot of people haven’t found a way to be effective in tournaments using lists that contain thenT-47. That doesn’t prove that there’s no way the T-47 could be viable in tournaments. But it suggests that if there is, then it’s something a lot of people have tried to find and failed.

While people are responding to you in a very hostile way, fundamentally what they are really saying is “if the T-47 can work, just show us how it works.” Which is an opportunity you have to make your case.

4 hours ago, BigBadAndy said:

Wow... this thread. I don’t hang out here much as I usually just paint the models and look at them, while imagining that I will someday play more. I played in one tournament and went 1-2 and didn’t use my T-47. I played one casual game with it and it performed awesomely, although my opponent was very inexperienced.

But more importantly, people just need to learn how to discuss things. First, the options are not “garbage” or “awesome.” As a few people have tried to point out the unit might be situational.

I actually follow the competitive fighting game scene (Street Fighter, Tekken etc.) and these types of discussions are incredibly common and equally (if not more) vitriolic. But arguing over whether something is trash and needs to be improved (buffed) or whether it’s too good and needs to be curtailed (nerfed) is rarely productive. Especially when you have people saying productive things like “just stop. It sucks, everyone knows it sucks.” And while it’s true that some characters are less good than others, it’s also fairly common for someone to show up at a tournament playing a character that everyone knows is terrible and just wreck everybody - because they’ve figured out how to use it. Is that likely to happen with the T-47? Maybe not but I would encourage people not to be so strident about it being terrible.

@Derrault I understand your desire for data. But in my career I’m a research scientist who has moved into risk assessment. What you are doing is exactly what I deal with every day. Scientists always want data. There is never enough data and we dismiss any decision with incomplete data as being arbitrary - since we don’t have all the data. You are interested in research, but we will never have all the data we need to make research conclusions. But pretty much every one else is talking about risk assessment. They have a decision to make (“should I build my list with a T-47”) and they need to make that decision with whatever information is available to them. They generally can’t launch into a research project to validate their decisions. So how do they use the available evidence?

I understand that the “community consensus” is not conclusive evidence. But it’s not nothing either. Instead of considering the flaws in the research technique, ask what these data (because they are data) tell you. At the very least it suggests that a lot of people haven’t found a way to be effective in tournaments using lists that contain thenT-47. That doesn’t prove that there’s no way the T-47 could be viable in tournaments. But it suggests that if there is, then it’s something a lot of people have tried to find and failed.

While people are responding to you in a very hostile way, fundamentally what they are really saying is “if the T-47 can work, just show us how it works.” Which is an opportunity you have to make your case.

I know; that’s why I object to the blanket claim; there’s simply no data, nothing from tournaments that provides usable evidence.

We don’t have reporting that supports ‘any’ statement one way or the other. And, opinion really is just that; it might provide the basis for forming a hypothesis, but that has no utility in answering that hypothesis. And, to the question of trying and failing; no we actually have data of many entry lists (LVO and Adepticon) and nobody even tried to use it.

That’s not proof it’s bad (ie not viable) only that it wasn’t taken (for reasons unestablished). You can’t have proof if you don’t have any trials.

In the absence of trials (or the ability to run trials yourself) list construction should employ analysis of unit features and examine their planned function in game.

1 hour ago, Derrault said:

In the   absence of trials (or the ability to run trials yourself) list construction should employ analysis of unit featu  r  es and examine their planned function in game.   

I think that’s fair. But a lot of people have done analysis on the T-47 and feel that it comes up short. No, that doesn’t prove that it’s bad, and I agree that there’s a lot of “bandwagoning” where people have just latched on to the idea that “you can’t run T-47 in a competitive list.” But there’s are also a lot of solid, thoughtful war game players who make a reasonable analysis that it’s not good. But weighing the available evidence (imperfect as that may be) I would have to conclude that it’s at least more likely that the T-47 is bad (over costed) than that it’s fine.

We have these same discussions about fighting games. People point out which characters won tournaments and then other people point out that winning tournaments involves not just the character but the player, his opponent and the opponents character. The same is true in Legion. So to get what you would call “real data” we would have to run hundreds of games between the worlds best Legion players using T-47 lists against a variety of both opponents and lists. We will never have such data. We can cry about that or say we don’t have enough data, but we still have to decide if we want T-47 on our list. So what to do?

The good news is, the second someone shows up and wins a tournament with a T-47 on his list, the bandwagon will change direction. But until then, you aren’t going to change anyone’s mind without demonstrating that it can be part of a winning strategy.

4 hours ago, BigBadAndy said:

I think that’s fair. But a lot of people have done analysis on the T-47 and feel that it comes up short. No, that doesn’t prove that it’s bad, and I agree that there’s a lot of “bandwagoning” where people have just latched on to the idea that “you can’t run T-47 in a competitive list.” But there’s are also a lot of solid, thoughtful war game players who make a reasonable analysis that it’s not good. But weighing the available evidence (imperfect as that may be) I would have to conclude that it’s at least more likely that the T-47 is bad (over costed) than that it’s fine.

We have these same discussions about fighting games. People point out which characters won tournaments and then other people point out that winning tournaments involves not just the character but the player, his opponent and the opponents character. The same is true in Legion. So to get what you would call “real data” we would have to run hundreds of games between the worlds best Legion players using T-47 lists against a variety of both opponents and lists. We will never have such data. We can cry about that or say we don’t have enough data, but we still have to decide if we want T-47 on our list. So what to do?

The good news is, the second someone shows up and wins a tournament with a T-47 on his list, the bandwagon will change direction. But until then, you aren’t going to change anyone’s mind without demonstrating that it can be part of a winning strategy.

This is true, we have as much evidence on this forum that you or I am the next Lebron James as we do the quality of the T-47; and no, random players on the internet opinions aren’t data or evidence of the quality of any given unit.

But that’s always been my position; that there’s no concrete reason to suggest a specific cause of action based on a vocal factions opinions. If they want to suggest X or Y is bad, the burden of proof requires them to support that with hard data. Not the opinion of joe blow tournament attendee.

3 hours ago, Derrault said:

This is true, we have as much evidence on this forum that you or I am the next Lebron James as we do the quality of the T-47; and no, random players on the internet opinions aren’t data or evidence of the quality of any given unit.

But that’s always been my position; that there’s no concrete reason to suggest a specific cause of action based on a vocal factions opinions. If they want to suggest X or Y is bad, the burden of proof requires them to support that with hard data. Not the opinion of joe blow tournament attendee.

First, the idea that one of us is the next LeBron James is a farfetched idea. It would therefore require substantial amounts of evidence to get anyone to believe it. The idea that the T-47 doesn’t fit in competitive lists is NOT a far fetched idea and therefore requires much less evidence. People who make the kind of statements you made tend to be arguing that we don’t know there was an actual moon landing and other highly unlikely things. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But ordinary claims don’t.

And just because random opinions on the internet don’t mean everything doesn’t mean that they mean nothing. By your stated standard, we know nothing about the game and couldn’t possibly know anything about it. And there’s no point in having a forum to talk about it because there’s no way to know anything. You’re wasting your time posting here when you should be out running some of the infinite number of games you need to run to constitute adequate data.

You are asking everyone else to prove their opinion to a high standard of evidence but you aren’t offering any evidence of your own whatsoever. (Hint: this May be why people seem aggravated with you). No one has to prove to you that it’s bad.

But there are some undeniable facts. It is not appearing in tournament lists with much frequency (fact). When it shows up in a list at a tournament, those players lose (fact). At least some tournament players are pretty good at the game, suggesting they are reasonably well educated on how it works. Suggesting their opinions are based on something. Suggesting they have reason to believe the T-47 is not competitive. This doesn’t prove it beyond any possibility, but it’s evidence none the less.

6 hours ago, BigBadAndy said:

First, the idea that one of us is the next LeBron James is a farfetched idea. It would therefore require substantial amounts of evidence to get anyone to believe it. The idea that the T-47 doesn’t fit in competitive lists is NOT a far fetched idea and therefore requires much less evidence. People who make the kind of statements you made tend to be arguing that we don’t know there was an actual moon landing and other highly unlikely things. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But ordinary claims don’t.

And just because random opinions on the internet don’t mean everything doesn’t mean that they mean nothing. By your stated standard, we know nothing about the game and couldn’t possibly know anything about it. And there’s no point in having a forum to talk about it because there’s no way to know anything. You’re wasting your time posting here when you should be out running some of the infinite number of games you need to run to constitute adequate data.

You are asking everyone else to prove their opinion to a high standard of evidence but you aren’t offering any evidence of your own whatsoever. (Hint: this May be why people seem aggravated with you). No one has to prove to you that it’s bad.

But there are some undeniable facts. It is not appearing in tournament lists with much frequency (fact). When it shows up in a list at a tournament, those players lose (fact). At least some tournament players are pretty good at the game, suggesting they are reasonably well educated on how it works. Suggesting their opinions are based on something. Suggesting they have reason to believe the T-47 is not competitive. This doesn’t prove it beyond any possibility, but it’s evidence none the less.

Well that turned fast.

The point of the Lebron statement was simply to note how baseless the claims that are being made are. No evidence is no evidence.

And an extraordinary claim would be that the moon is really made of cheese; or that we’re all just brains in vats hooked to electrodes receiving electric impulses that simulate the real world (thanks Descartes)

No, you mistake my position: Random internet opinions mean nothing. They, at best, spur investigation of a topic, but for actual conclusion they have exactly zero compelling power.

In the first place I asked for compelling evidence that supported some people’s opinions; they gave vague generalities and statements like saying it was fragile (demonstrably false, and yet repeated ad naseum by some).

Now, before you run right off the slippery slope you’ve developed; here’s the stakes: Sure, some posters are noisy, rude, and boorish with their opinions, and I could just look, laugh, and move on. But if they’re the only ones posting then it would appear that their misinformed opinions are the only opinions, and there’s a risk, however small, that the game developers might read and buy into this groupthink, purely on the basis of repetition. By not posting to challenge these claims, I’d be doing a fundamental disservice to myself if the rules were somehow altered for a game that I actively play.

As to your “facts”, easy rebut: lots of players lose at tournaments, in fact, more players lose using the bog standard 6 corps 3 snipers variants than any other type...why? Because most players bring that. How many brought 47s? 1-2 lists maybe?

No reasonable determination that can be made about the quality of 2 lists out of 96, let alone out of 100+, based on only the WL data other than: need more samples. In fact that was a key critique of the only known claims that 47s were run (LVO and Invader) was that they only have information on final outcomes and even then it’s nothing more than WL ratio (combined) for LVO, nothing was apparently harvested at all for invader league.

Incidentally @BigBadAndy , people who make statements and claims that rely on the reputation of others, rather than the veracity of the information itself are incoming an appeal to authority. Ie a thing is true only because respected source X said so, and a thing is false because source Y said so. It’s a very bad fallacy to get caught up in if you are in risk assessment. Falling prey to it means you can make serious mistakes very easily.