13 hours ago, Derrault said:

Good coaches know how to maximize players and find a path to victory, bad coaches don't.

And yes, the list selection is essentially irrelevent to if a player is good or not. If they're a good player, they can find a path to victory, if they're bad, then they can't adapt their play choices based on what they have and what the opponent brings.

Ok, lets say this good coach gets a bunch of toddlers as a team. Will he be able to win any game in a major (or just amateur) league?

Being a good player is one element of improving your chances to win. And so is having a good list/team. A good player has a higher chance in winning with any list than a bad player. And any player has a higher chance of winning with a good list opposed to a terrible one. Add them up (actually multiply them since we are talking about probabilities) and the best chance of winning is being a good player having a good list.

13 hours ago, Derrault said:

What do you consider a 'bad' but legal list anyway?
Why is it you don't think said list has a path to victory?

If you want you can fill that list up with the worst units and the moste terrible uprades (targeting scopes, Comms Jammer, ...) and you'll find a list that not even the best player will have any success against any half decent opponent.

13 hours ago, Derrault said:

Sure, you can navel gaze and guess, but what's the point of doing that instead of just collecting the relevant data in the first place?

What you are searching for is a perfect answer to everything without question. But that's not how statistics work. It is scientifically legitimate to draw conclusions already from a few datapoints, as long as you state the margins. And actually in Legion we have lots of data to draw from. Be it people statistically analizing attack outcomes, evaluating efficiency of upgrades, lists brought to tournaments and of course play experiences and results. If every list has 2+ sniper teams since months, this is statistically significant, as well as the complete absence of upgrades like targeting scopes or comms jammer.

For other units it might be too soon to draw final conclusions but you can find trends and have findings with larger margins. It is for example absolutely reasonable to assume that bossk is probably more useful than the occupier tank, just based on the fact that more people bring it to the field and more successful players have it in their list. I'd say like a 75% probability.

Statistics is all about taking the data you can get and making the best out of it. Of course you can always argue that you need more data. With that, you'll never be able to draw any conclusions whatsoever because the perfect answer simply does not exist and with new releases every month, you'd need to start gathering data from start. The point is collecting what we know, drawing conclusions and use them to maximize chances in the next game. If you don't like doing that, fine. But you cannot reasonably argue that any analysis is worthless unless thousands and hundreds of thousands of tests have been done. That's just not how statistics work ...

@Senjius
"First of all, please make some effort to use the quote tool correctly so everyone can read your post easily. Take a look at everyone else´ s posts please."

I'm copy-pasting from notepad, because I'm taking the time to compose my thoughts, rather than just doing it off the cuff. Hence using actual quotes marks instead of the tool. I did take the time to backtrack and redo the names, purely for your convenience, you're welcome.

@Senjius
"Second, do not distort what I have told you. You said that listbuilding does not matter. I told you that was not true. Listbuilding is important. Can you win with a bad list? Yes. Can you approach with a mediocre list to a big tournament with top tier players with top tier lists (or at least people with your level of skills) and expect to win? Fast answer, no. Maybe you can get some wins due to dumb luck or big mistakes from your rival (even top tier players made mistakes sometimes) but at the end of the day, you are going to be mopped a lot. I am sorry to bring it to you but listbuilding is **** important in this game. Is it better to be a good player than having a good list? Of course. But when you arrive to a BIG tournament you need to be good and to have a decent list at least."

A) You didn't actually answer my direct question about what the 50% efficiency / 95% means.

B) I mean, you just said a player using a "mediocre" (again, whatever that means to you?) list can't win against players using "top tier" (whatever that constitutes) lists. That's literally what I suggested you were saying, here: “@Senjius seemed to be suggesting that taking something 'other' than the top player list could expect bad results." Where's the difference there (Are you disagreeing with bad results == not 5-0)?

C) You also did not address my direct question: How do you reconcile your stated position with scenarios where the 'non-toptier' (whatever that means to you) list runs the board against the 'top tier' lists?

Do you just replace the definition of top tier in your own mind to include the newly winning list, or do you dismiss it as an aberration? Or what?

@SailorMeni
"Ok, lets say this good coach gets a bunch of toddlers as a team. Will he be able to win any game in a major (or just amateur) league?

Being a good player is one element of improving your chances to win. And so is having a good list/team. A good player has a higher chance in winning with any list than a bad player. And any player has a higher chance of winning with a good list opposed to a terrible one. Add them up (actually multiply them since we are talking about probabilities) and the best chance of winning is being a good player having a good list."

I mean...if toddlers were able to succeed in the training camp; sure? These super toddlers able to field a ball wouldn't be able to meet the basic NFL eligibility requirements however, since they'd have to be 3 years out of high school (meaning, not toddlers anymore).

@SailorMeni
"One generic Rebel Commander with 3 naked Fleet Troopers is a legal list. Are you seriously arguing that this list has any chance of winning against any normal list against a player that is not gagged and blindfolded?

If you want you can fill that list up with the worst units and the moste terrible uprades (targeting scopes, Comms Jammer, ...) and you'll find a list that not even the best player will have any success against any half decent opponent."

Ok, previous question toddler silliness aside; I'll try to take this one seriously: My unstated assumption was a near 800 point list (meaning, I'd consider sacrificing maybe 1-2 units (i.e. upwards of 100 points) worth of points if being blue player made card selection and starting locations that important to my overall strategy)

Tiny caveat? That being said, it's at least theoretically possible to win on something like Recover the Supplies, if you can burn every activation on move to reach those supplies and then bug out with them, playing hide and go seek around terrain until the clock runs out (either through time, or rounds). Seems unlikely to work if your opponent realizes what you're going to do, however.

@SailorMeni
"What you are searching for is a perfect answer to everything without question. But that's not how statistics work. It is scientifically legitimate to draw conclusions already from a few datapoints, as long as you state the margins. And actually in Legion we have lots of data to draw from. Be it people statistically analizing attack outcomes, evaluating efficiency of upgrades, lists brought to tournaments and of course play experiences and results. If every list has 2+ sniper teams since months, this is statistically significant, as well as the complete absence of upgrades like targeting scopes or comms jammer.

For other units it might be too soon to draw final conclusions but you can find trends and have findings with larger margins. It is for example absolutely reasonable to assume that bossk is probably more useful than the occupier tank, just based on the fact that more people bring it to the field and more successful players have it in their list. I'd say like a 75% probability.

Statistics is all about taking the data you can get and making the best out of it. Of course you can always argue that you need more data. With that, you'll never be able to draw any conclusions whatsoever because the perfect answer simply does not exist and with new releases every month, you'd need to start gathering data from start. The point is collecting what we know, drawing conclusions and use them to maximize chances in the next game. If you don't like doing that, fine. But you cannot reasonably argue that any analysis is worthless unless thousands and hundreds of thousands of tests have been done. That's just not how statistics work ..."

Your statements are very misleading. Anything less than 95% confidence (p value 5%) is saying that there's a greater than 1/20 chance our results were a random anomaly. Right now what we have from the invader league partial data is low-power; Low-power studies are not helpful; and yes, arguably we want a 'minimum' of a thousand plus data points (ideally tens of thousands). And there's a difference, a very big and meaningful difference, between more data is good, and ...bare minimum data required to make a meaningful claim. What we have right now doesn't meet any of the basic thresholds.

Drawing conclusions on Bossk from 0 data is less than helpful. And in case you missed the entire thread, as to the question of Bossk let me remind you that there's no data, none, zero, zilch, zip, nada, that tells us what the seed lists were for the invader league. All we have is the outcome, and we don't have any way of knowing what that means absent the starting point. 0 certainty.

Aside: to the popularity of strike team snipers; it apparently bears repeating: Popularity is NOT, I repeat, NOT an indicator of quality.
It may corrolate, but there is no causal relationship there. Socrates is a man, does not mean all men are Socrates.

Now...if you 'want' to start gathering meaningful data, one way to begin would be to actually capture the start (i.e. Get the lists of everyone who goes into Invader League when they sign up! Then you at least figure out what player (and their list) defeated what other player (and their list).

Absent the ability to recreate the same conditions over and over again (i.e. control for the same players match-ups with the same lists using the same OCD card results), there will never be meaningful data to support any theory that's been expounded.

Because players can use a different list for every game in the round robin stage. I didn’t feel like collecting 240 lists so I don’t have that data, sorry.

1 hour ago, Derrault said:

Now...if you 'want' to start gathering meaningful data, one way to begin would be to actually capture the start (i.e. Get the lists of everyone who goes into Invader League when they sign up! Then you at least figure out what player (and their list) defeated what other player (and their list).

Absent the ability to recreate the same conditions over and over again (i.e. control for the same players match-ups with the same lists using the same OCD card results), there will never be meaningful data to support any theory that's been expounded.

As TP mentioned, that would require looking at the 240+ lists that were used during round robin. As much as I would like to do something like we did for LVO, where we got each list, indexed each list against each individual match, and looked at the results in aggregate, that just isn't feasible for every tournament.

You can find the LVO data here, if you are curious. Don't worry, I jump to lots of interesting conclusions and make broad generalizations using small sample sizes. And talk about snipers. Yeah, its a small sample. But I did look at the overall record of players using snipers, including the record in matches where one player had snipers and one player didn't. It's interesting, at a minimum.

I don't want to turn this entire thread into a discussion about sniper strike teams, because there are plenty of those. If you look at the numbers though, they are the most efficient anti-trooper damage dealers on a per point basis (with an aim token, which they generally have) besides Fleets with Scatter and the AT-RT flamethrower. Considering the range and overall cost differences there, the efficiency obsessed part of my brain has trouble arguing with that. So does the on the table part where I've tested a lot of lists without snipers and found them to be lacking.

We aren't scientists, we're gamers. What would be the point of the discussion on these forums if we could remove all doubt and determine with certainty which units were objectively the best? We use the data that we have. By all means test things out and draw your own conclusions. But drawing no conclusions at all is not very helpful from a list construction standpoint. You have to start somewhere. Hopefully my articles help people do that. Can a good player win with a bad list? Sure. But a player of any caliber has a better shot to win with a good list than they do with a bad one.

And you know what... my experience tells me Bossk is pretty good. I'm 7-0 so far with him in Invader League. Small sample? Sure. Meaningless? Not to me. Also, those are my first 7 games ever with Empire. Just saying.

That's just, like, my opinion, man.

1 hour ago, Orkimedes said:

As TP mentioned, that would require looking at the 240+ lists that were used during round robin. As much as I would like to do something like we did for LVO, where we got each list, indexed each list against each individual match, and looked at the results in aggregate, that just isn't feasible for every tournament.

You can find the LVO data here, if you are curious. Don't worry, I jump to lots of interesting conclusions and make broad generalizations using small sample sizes. And talk about snipers. Yeah, its a small sample. But I did look at the overall record of players using snipers, including the record in matches where one player had snipers and one player didn't. It's interesting, at a minimum.

I don't want to turn this entire thread into a discussion about sniper strike teams, because there are plenty of those. If you look at the numbers though, they are the most efficient anti-trooper damage dealers on a per point basis (with an aim token, which they generally have) besides Fleets with Scatter and the AT-RT flamethrower. Considering the range and overall cost differences there, the efficiency obsessed part of my brain has trouble arguing with that. So does the on the table part where I've tested a lot of lists without snipers and found them to be lacking.

We aren't scientists, we're gamers. What would be the point of the discussion on these forums if we could remove all doubt and determine with certainty which units were objectively the best? We use the data that we have. By all means test things out and draw your own conclusions. But drawing no conclusions at all is not very helpful from a list construction standpoint. You have to start somewhere. Hopefully my articles help people do that. Can a good player win with a bad list? Sure. But a player of any caliber has a better shot to win with a good list than they do with a bad one.

And you know what... my experience tells me Bossk is pretty good. I'm 7-0 so far with him in Invader League. Small sample? Sure. Meaningless? Not to me. Also, those are my first 7 games ever with Empire. Just saying.

That's just, like, my opinion, man.

Sorry, what’s the difficulty in collecting lists for an online tournament???

That’s next to nothing in terms of record keeping.

Yes, I’ve seen the limited data collected from LVO.

As for strike teams: 44 points to deal the same damage as a naked corps unit from longer range... their flaw is they simply don’t do much, and can’t be upgraded for any real lethality. 1 damage average...yay. That maybe eliminates one corps unit for the entire game🙀

Because no one is going to go through all 240 for me? And sorry, I do have other stuff to do with my time, so I haven’t developed a good system for collecting them all yet. I don’t need 96 people PMing me on discord every round...

If you would like to do something useful for a change, I’m on discord and we take volunteers to help run it!

That being said I usually take people who play the game to help me, and it’s really hard to tell if you do anymore.

28 minutes ago, TalkPolite said:

Because no one is going to go through all 240 for me? And sorry, I do have other stuff to do with my time, so I haven’t developed a good system for collecting them all yet. I don’t need 96 people PMing me on discord every round...

If you would like to do something useful for a change, I’m on discord and we take volunteers to help run it!

That being said I usually take people who play the game to help me, and it’s really hard to tell if you do anymore.

What’s your intake process?

You’re not manually collecting the information instead of having them fill out a pdf form and submit via email are you?

On 5/21/2019 at 10:44 PM, Derrault said:

No, I said: “I'd strongly caution against conflating success or list selection with being a good player.”

The first was to note that winning games isn’t in and of itself evidence of being a good player. And that extends beyond the obvious, that cheaters also appear to be good players, until they get caught.

I know that there’s a lot of room for nuanced thought games and planning, but to quote Moltke: No plan of operations extends with any certainty beyond the first contact with the main hostile force.

The second part, list selection: If that is truly important, than it wasn’t the player who won, it was the units. If the player is good, they can win regardless of the composition, by adapting their play to the circumstances.

I actually agree with these points on principle. A lot of faulty logic is being used to discount them.

I often nerf my army in order to learn tactics for dealing with difficult units. I’ve had 120 point deficits and won. I’ve seen friends have 50 point deficits and win - but they had a plan.

I also agree that the data sets on lists are not really reliable due to low sample size and too many variables. Terrain, player, opponent, opponent’s list, time limits, and unfortunately cheating, can all handicap an otherwise good list.

The only way you get better is by playing and I think it’s important to play with and against a diversity of units. There’s not a silver bullet in this game (not even from a sniper team).

I prefer to think of the “top” lists more as the safest lists. They are good at dealing with combinations of these variables. Still, I recently beat a good player playing Wonder Twins with Veers, Boba, 4 DLT squads, and a fully loaded AT-ST. It was my first play with any Imperial list but because of this I knew how to deal with different Rebel threats and how to protect my own units.

6 hours ago, Derrault said:

Drawing conclusions on Bossk from 0 data is less than helpful. And in case you missed the entire thread, as to the question of Bossk let me remind you that there's no data, none, zero, zilch, zip, nada, that tells us what the seed lists were for the invader league. All we have is the outcome, and we don't have any way of knowing what that means absent the starting point. 0 certainty.

Aside: to the popularity of strike team snipers; it apparently bears repeating: Popularity is NOT, I repeat, NOT an indicator of quality.
It may corrolate, but there is no causal relationship there. Socrates is a man, does not mean all men are Socrates.

Your problem is you disregard every data that does not come directly out of games. We might not know what lists were used in round Robin but we can be sure that at least 90% of finalists are experienced players with skill and probably hundreds of games in there pocket and a thorough thought process behind their list. So in itself the final lists are already the result of collections of data. And since every player wants to win and tries to create the most efficient list (and tries to counter meta lists), analysis of the lists can be meaningful.

For Bossk I agree we don't have enough data (but NOT zero, nada!) for final conclusions but we can say that he is very likely better than the occupier tank. For other older units which are in no list we can say with quite certainty that they are not efficient (e-Web, Airspeeder) and others which are in every list (sniperteams) are very efficient. Does that mean it's impossible to win without snipers? Of course not. Does it mean it is harder to win without snipers? **** yeah!

In other words: If every man is Sokrates, Sokrates is Sokrates

The funny fact about this is that I planned this "suppressive" meta to be a thing when we had the sneaky peak at the new units (DT, Bossk).

The other one is that my own rebels list did not move a single millimeter since September. Yes, it still works quite well (perhaps because I know how to play it perfectly now) but it begins to feel old now. I can't wait to try Tauntaun.

And the release of ISC...

Bossk is better than Boba point efficiency wise. I would never play a list with just Boba once Bossk is released, but I would play a Bossk only list.

Triple snipers is what you play if you wanna win and only care about winning a tournament. I've yet to see a list convince me otherwise.

The game in general has large skill gaps still and a huge amount of RNG, so using tournament results isn't really a good way to determine the best units and lists. Even in x-wing, where they have waaaaay more games played than Legion; I would argue that they also wouldn't be able to prove anything with tournament results for the same reasons. All we can look at is points efficiency per unit and try to quantify the intangibles like Whipcord or speed 3 w/ Jump, Explosions, etc.

17 hours ago, Derrault said:

What’s your intake process?

You’re not manually collecting the information instead of having them fill out a pdf form and submit via email are you?

We don't submit lists for the first month of Invader League, we just play them.

Nah. We don’t collect until single elims, and players submit via Table Top Admiral because it does most of the work for me. We actually just developed an excel doc that checks the lists for me and spits out data (frequency of units, command cards, etc) so that’ll be useful during Year 2 Organized play and whatnot. Ork was already able to push out an analysis article in pretty short time because of it.

Thanks for the work.

Is there also some data about activation count in that excel sheet? It may be an interesting thing to analyse as well if there is some kind of development over time and if there is some different trend going on with lists that do well at a certain point in time.

1 hour ago, arnoldrew said:

We don't submit lists for the first month of Invader League, we just play them.

It would be useful (for metrics) if that practice changed to be similar to a tournament, where the lists are provided up front.

@smickletz
"I actually agree with these points on principle. A lot of faulty logic is being used to discount them.

I often nerf my army in order to learn tactics for dealing with difficult units. I’ve had 120 point deficits and won. I’ve seen friends have 50 point deficits and win - but they had a plan. 

I also agree that the data sets on lists are not really reliable due to low sample size and too many variables. Terrain, player, opponent, opponent’s list, time limits, and unfortunately cheating, can all handicap an otherwise good list.

The only way you get better is by playing and I think it’s important to play with and against a diversity of units. There’s not a silver bullet in this game (not even from a sniper team).

I prefer to think of the “top” lists more as the safest lists. They are good at dealing with combinations of these variables. Still, I recently beat a good player playing Wonder Twins with Veers, Boba, 4 DLT squads, and a fully loaded AT-ST. It was my first play with any Imperial list but because of this I knew how to deal with different Rebel threats and how to protect my own units."

Thank you

@SailorMeni
"Your problem is you disregard every data that does not come directly out of games. We might not know what lists were used in round Robin but we can be sure that at least 90% of finalists are experienced players with skill and probably hundreds of games in there pocket and a thorough thought process behind their list. So in itself the final lists are already the result of collections of data. And since every player wants to win and tries to create the most efficient list (and tries to counter meta lists), analysis of the lists can be meaningful.

For Bossk I agree we don't have enough data (but NOT zero, nada!) for final conclusions but we can say that he is very likely better than the occupier tank. For other older units which are in no list we can say with quite certainty that they are not efficient (e-Web, Airspeeder) and others which are in every list (sniperteams) are very efficient. Does that mean it's impossible to win without snipers? Of course not. Does it mean it is harder to win without snipers? **** yeah!

In other words: If every man is Sokrates, Sokrates is Sokrates"

For the Invader League, what we can be sure of is that these are just the first 96 players who self-select for online play, meaning this is, at best, the subset of the player population who also uses TTS AND who signed up in time to fill the limited slots. Now, Orkimedes might track usernames for all entrants and be able to identify which players are returning (so they at least have online experience); or be otherwise familiar with some, but outside of that getting provided, then we don't actually know the level of experience of these players beyond: In order to pass the first round to reach the 32 (and thus have their lists examined), they just had to beat out 3/5 other players in their bracket. Ok...so 3 wins? Any number of which could be squeakers, and they still count as wins.

I agree that looking at past competition 'may' have some utility for future competition; but, as in the case of Bossk, we don't know how effective that past competition actually was, and that's the key thing if you want a truly useful takeaway, and not to get misled by your available data.

That's the dilemma: If players who selected for the tournament chose to use Imperial w/Bossk compositions at higher than normal rates, it's entirely possible that Bossk compositions representing 50% of Imperial survivors is a consequence purely by virtue of omnipresence in the seed groups.

And that's a very plausible explanation, because Bossk is a new toy and everyone likes to play with new toys.

Similarly, with the Strike Teams...we can't actually say they're more useful than alternatives unless we can show that they're NOT omnipresent in all the entry lists. And by all accounts they have been.

All that really tells us is that when you have two lists with sniper strike teams...a list with sniper strike teams wins.

And, if we're just doing a comparison of what you get for what you put in, strike teams are frigging awful. So, on paper, they're a bad investment.

2 hp, deals ~1 wound/round to non-armored, non-pierce immune units at any range for 44 points (52 points if you want to ensure they have heavy cover against incoming enemy fire...although if the enemy has Sharpshooter, forget it)

So, one of the most fragile units in the game, unlikely to be anywhere near an objective token, and, if it does not die and has a clear shot every single activation, might kill one enemy unit worth of troopers. Maybe. (They suffer when there's plenty of room on a board to hug cover and avoid shots, and hunter-killer units that can run down snipers at will).

8 minutes ago, Derrault said:

2 hp, deals ~1 wound/round to non-armored, non-pierce immune units at any range for 44 points (52 points if you want to ensure they have heavy cover against incoming enemy fire...although if the enemy has Sharpshooter, forget it)

So, one of the most fragile units in the game, unlikely to be anywhere near an objective token, and, if it does not die and has a clear shot every single activation, might kill one enemy unit worth of troopers. Maybe. (They suffer when there's plenty of room on a board to hug cover and avoid shots, and hunter-killer units that can run down snipers at will).

You've successfully eliminated all credibility from any of your statements regarding competitive play with your comments above.

23 minutes ago, Hoffburger said:

You've successfully eliminated all credibility from any of your statements regarding competitive play with your comments above.

Thanks for you opinion. Did you want to explain to me what unit has worse than: 2 hit points + white surge defense dice???

Edit: No answer?

That is not getting shot at by anything but snipers, command cards, and AT-STs (which don't make the tables in any case)... Not getting shot at (as in the real world) is the most effective defense possible.

15 minutes ago, GreatMazinkaiser said:

That is not getting shot at by anything but snipers, command cards, and AT-STs (which don't make the tables in any case)... Not getting shot at (as in the real world) is the most effective defense possible.

Why do you think that other units can’t close range and shoot them?

Sure, maybe they can do that by turn 3 or 4 but the game has probably been decided by then. You'll lose half your corps units by that point in the game.

1 hour ago, GreatMazinkaiser said:

Sure, maybe they can do that by turn 3 or 4 but the game has probably been decided by then. You'll lose half your corps units by that point in the game.

Perhaps you didn’t realize, the hunter-killer units can threaten any point within 4 feet (2/3 of the board lengthwise...so pretty much the entire board), in one round. Potentially killing a sniper unit before it can even activate.

Similarly, other units (Pathfinders/Jyn, Commandos, Leia) are pretty much primed to get the jump on strike teams, either via Infiltrate, Scout, or command cards.

How are you losing corp units at that rate?; I’ve had games where there weren’t even firing solutions by either side until round 2-3 (low visibility conditions), and typically taking fire at all can be avoided on turn 0 (unit placement). I can’t even imagine what circumstances would lead to losing half my corps units less than a third of the way through a game, that would just be a rout.

2 hours ago, Derrault said:

Thanks for you opinion. Did you want to explain to me what unit has worse than: 2 hit points + white surge defense dice???

Edit: No answer?

I wanted to give you a chance and see if maybe you were just missing something, but now it's very clear that you have zero experience in high level games.

• Duck and cover on a sniper strike team is a really dumb idea and a waste of points.
• Snipers are one of the most durable units in the game due to corner peeking and medics.

I would highly suggest that you try playing the game at a high level sometime. Perhaps you should watch a few Invader League games or even participate in Season 4.

38 minutes ago, Hoffburger said:

I wanted to give you a chance and see if maybe you were just missing something, but now it's very clear that you have zero experience in high level games.

• Duck and cover on a sniper strike team is a really dumb idea and a waste of points.
• Snipers are one of the most durable units in the game due to corner peeking and medics.

I would highly suggest that you try playing the game at a high level sometime. Perhaps you should watch a few Invader League games or even participate in Season 4.

So, you agree they have zero cover to Hunter-Killer units that are more than capable of circumventing all terrain cover to get an open shot, and any unit with Sharpshooter (of which there are many), and melee of course.

Edit: If you don’t comprehend their innate weaknesses, it’s no wonder you think they’re stronger than they are.

2 hours ago, GreatMazinkaiser said:

Sure, maybe they can do that by turn 3 or 4 but the game has probably been decided by then. You'll lose half your corps units by that point in the game.

I’ve often had people ask round 3 or 4 if I want to concede. Then, they lost (sans snipers).

1 hour ago, Hoffburger said:

I wanted to give you a chance and see if maybe you were just missing something, but now it's very clear that you have zero experience in high level games.

• Duck and cover on a sniper strike team is a really dumb idea and a waste of points.
• Snipers are one of the most durable units in the game due to corner peeking and medics.

I would highly suggest that you try playing the game at a high level sometime. Perhaps you should watch a few Invader League games or even participate in Season 4.

I actually view TTS games as adjacent to physically playing as opposed to congruent. Like using a flight simulator vs. flying a plane. I don’t have TTS at my disposal, but it doesn’t make me a lesser player. In my experience, TTS and Invader League seem to consider themselves the cream of the crop and that arrogance can be irritating.