11 minutes ago, Tokra said:

And it means that everything else is just worse than these units.

No it doesn't. Even if everything else IS worse, this does not meet the definition of "evidence".

11 minutes ago, Tokra said:

If there are 24 out of 24 Special Forces in the 8 lists, and not a single heavy or support, it only means that the heavy and support are plain bad.

Nope.

11 minutes ago, Tokra said:

And if balance cannot be drawn from tournament games (and especially from the worlds), from what can you draw it?

Very little actual evidence can be drawn about Legion at this time. Things that all the best people agree is best, have been upset totally before in other games with things that existed all along. Like what the Russians did with the retreat in Olympic fencing.

11 minutes ago, Tokra said:

When i go to the worlds, i will take a list that has the biggest chance to win.

Most people will lose and be forgotten. The one who lost with two T-47's would be remembered. If you are going to lose (as all but one must) lose gloriously.

11 minutes ago, Tokra said:

And this result, with 8 so similar lists, really shows that there is a problem.

I think Legion has lots of problems, I am not arguing that it has no problems.

11 minutes ago, Tokra said:

IF there would be a list that can beat this "meta" list, i am sure a few would have taken it. But all 8 players must have come to the conclusion, that this list is the best.

They might be right. But that's not "evidence". When you don't know what is and isn't evidence, you can be easily tricked into thinking the world is flat, the moon landing was fake, and other far more dangerous things.

5 hours ago, Tokra said:

Well, lets see.
These 8 lists have:
21 Rebel Troopers (out of max 24)
12 Rebel Commandos (Strike Team) (out of max 12)
17 Stormtroppers (out of max 24)
11 Scout Troopers (Strike Team) (out of max 12)

They have 23 and 18 Corp units (out of max 24).
They have 12 and 12 Special Forces (out of max 12) (plus 3 from entourage)
There is not a single heavy or support unit.

And you are trying to tell me that this is no imbalanced in this game?
Sorry, but no way 😁.

When 75% of all units come from only 4 types (Rebel Troopers, Rebel Commandos (ST), Stormtroopers, Scout Trooper (ST)), there is a serious problem with the game.
If you even add the Luke/Leia combination that all 4 rebel lists have, it becomes even worse.

If you take into account how many units there are (way more than in Armada already), it is really a bad sign that all 4 rebel lists are basically the same.

Based on your reply, you didn’t understand my critique.

The composition of any given top 8 list result in finals depends entirely on what actually was used for the semi-finals, which depends on what the gen-pop entrants used.

Gen pop lists that were reported in RPQs/tournaments leading up to here had generally homogenous compositions, similar to the end results. So, no, these don’t tell us the lists are good per se, but rather that they reflect the comfort zone of the finalists (as well they should), and that what that comfort zone was is pretty much a fait accompli, because the entries were stacked towards this being the result.

ie GIGO in action. If you don’t like strike teams, but most who bothers to enter the early tournaments use them, then it’s very likely that some of all of the top 8 will have whatever composition the majority of entrants use.

7 hours ago, Tokra said:

Well, lets see.
These 8 lists have:
21 Rebel Troopers (out of max 24)
12 Rebel Commandos (Strike Team) (out of max 12)
17 Stormtroppers (out of max 24)
11 Scout Troopers (Strike Team) (out of max 12)

They have 23 and 18 Corp units (out of max 24).
They have 12 and 12 Special Forces (out of max 12) (plus 3 from entourage)
There is not a single heavy or support unit.

And you are trying to tell me that this is no imbalanced in this game?
Sorry, but no way 😁.

When 75% of all units come from only 4 types (Rebel Troopers, Rebel Commandos (ST), Stormtroopers, Scout Trooper (ST)), there is a serious problem with the game.
If you even add the Luke/Leia combination that all 4 rebel lists have, it becomes even worse.

If you take into account how many units there are (way more than in Armada already), it is really a bad sign that all 4 rebel lists are basically the same.

Words from the World Armada champion, for those that aren't aware. This man knows competition.

5 hours ago, smickletz said:

Watching the Livestream, I can’t help but to notice the clock is a far bigger factor than anything else. How can the World Championship not be made to go to round 6? Not a great measure of which person is bringing the best if you have to end the game several rounds early so consistently. Does everyone just plan on having a 3-4 round game?

Almost a year ago I mentioned this game suffered suffered from a severe lack of Tournament game completion and many of the top players laughed and said it was fine. It's not fine. I go to a lot of tournaments and it's pretty rare when games finish. Most don't even get past turn 4.

47 minutes ago, Thraug said:

Words from the World Armada champion, for those that aren't aware. This man knows competition.

Given that there’s only two possible corps options, and you have to have 3-6; I don’t find high numbers of that particularly meaningful.

Ie Rebel Troopers; Max of 24, min of 12; 21 is only slightly above average on that range. (18).

1 hour ago, Thraug said:

Almost a year ago I mentioned this game suffered suffered from a severe lack of Tournament game completion and many of the top players laughed and said it was fine. It's not fine. I go to a lot of tournaments and it's pretty rare when games finish. Most don't even get past turn 4.

Alex Davy was talking about focusing on Organized Play formats now that they have Clone Wars and GCW stuff developed for the foreseeable future. They are particularly focusing on the 500pt style of game. It’d be interesting to see if Tournament play shifts to lower points in order to guarantee matches finish.

The fact that MSU spam is the thing in all these games really disappoints me. I’ll never play lists like these because I find them boring, but knowing all the streaming tourneys are going to be filled with these lists makes me not want to watch either.

24 minutes ago, flightmaster101 said:

The fact that MSU spam is the thing in all these games really disappoints me. I’ll never play lists like these because I find them boring, but knowing all the streaming tourneys are going to be filled with these lists makes me not want to watch either.

Having many units that generate and take as much or more damage than 1 unit of equivalent cost is why players don't use high cost vehicles. They reduce the following, all of which are important in competitive play:

- activations give control

- activations (# of units) win most objectives

This is why 3-4 corps are better than 1 ATST.

Okay boys, let's keep fighting the good fight. Sigh.........

6 hours ago, TauntaunScout said:

The top tier lists are anecdotes not evidence.

They might BE the best units. But the top tier lists still aren’t the definition of evidence.

What is your definition of evidence? 1000 simulated games? 10,000? 1,000,000? Your argument from authority is unachievable because we cannot gather that data. All we have is:

• the maths, which has been argued ad-nauseum on this forum
• the logical deduction of functional ability, based upon the rules of the game, and the way it is played
• personal experience playing outside of tournaments (yes anecdotal, but its what we've got)
• the choices the TOP PLAYERS make when going to tournaments - this is a real argument from authority and evidence, combined. It shows us what the best minds in the current game have chosen to take.

4 hours ago, Derrault said:

Based on your reply, you didn’t understand my critique.

The composition of any given top 8 list result in finals depends entirely on what actually was used for the semi-finals, which depends on what the gen-pop entrants used.

Gen pop lists that were reported in RPQs/tournaments leading up to here had generally homogenous compositions, similar to the end results. So, no, these don’t tell us the lists are good per se, but rather that they reflect the comfort zone of the finalists (as well they should), and that what that comfort zone was is pretty much a fait accompli, because the entries were stacked towards this being the result.

ie GIGO in action. If you don’t like strike teams, but most who bothers to enter the early tournaments use them, then it’s very likely that some of all of the top 8 will have whatever composition the majority of entrants use.

The last LVO had a large variety of lists. But the ones now being taken in worlds are the based on the most effective builds from LVO, other earlier tournaments, maths, deductive reasoning based on the mechanics of the game and what actually wins, and personal 'friendly' games.

I'm done with trying to address your obvious ignorance to the actual evidence we have available. You can keep trying to argue from a perceived authority that does not exist, cannot be formulated, nor feasibly tested. OR you can accept that something constructive needs to be done about the monotony in tourney list builds.

I think the easiest, and fastest, way to solve the issue, are some moderate points adjustments to certain units. These erratas would be placed in the back of the online rulebook. EASY.

I drop the mike and bow out of this thread.... FML

6 minutes ago, lologrelol said:

Okay boys, let's keep fighting the good fight. Sigh.........

What is your definition of evidence? 1000 simulated games? 10,000? 1,000,000? Your argument from authority is unachievable because we cannot gather that data. All we have is:

• the maths, which has been argued ad-nauseum on this forum
• the logical deduction of functional ability, based upon the rules of the game, and the way it is played
• personal experience playing outside of tournaments (yes anecdotal, but its what we've got)
• the choices the TOP PLAYERS make when going to tournaments - this is a real argument from authority and evidence, combined. It shows us what the best minds in the current game have chosen to take.

The last LVO had a large variety of lists. But the ones now being taken in worlds are the based on the most effective builds from LVO, other earlier tournaments, maths, deductive reasoning based on the mechanics of the game and what actually wins, and personal 'friendly' games.

I'm done with trying to address your obvious ignorance to the actual evidence we have available. You can keep trying to argue from a perceived authority that does not exist, cannot be formulated, nor feasibly tested. OR you can accept that something constructive needs to be done about the monotony in tourney list builds.

I think the easiest, and fastest, way to solve the issue, are some moderate points adjustments to certain units. These erratas would be placed in the back of the online rulebook. EASY.

I drop the mike and bow out of this thread.... FML

LVO was varied? That’s the first time I’ve ever heard some make that (bogus) claim before.

2 hours ago, Derrault said:

LVO was varied? That’s the first time I’ve ever heard some make that (bogus) claim before.

Did you go? Cause it was pretty varied!

6 hours ago, lologrelol said:

Okay boys, let's keep fighting the good fight. Sigh.........

What is your definition of evidence? 1000 simulated games? 10,000? 1,000,000? Your argument from authority

I am not making an argument from authority.

6 hours ago, lologrelol said:

is unachievable because we cannot gather that data.

Correct. We cannot gather enough meaningful data in Legion to form a real body of evidence.

6 hours ago, lologrelol said:

• the choices the TOP PLAYERS make when going to tournaments -

That's the only argument to authority anyone's been making.

6 hours ago, lologrelol said:

I'm done with trying to address your obvious ignorance to the actual evidence we have available. You can keep trying to argue from a perceived authority that does not exist, cannot be formulated, nor feasibly tested.

I'm aware of it. But these 8 lists are STILL too small a sampling to draw real conclusions from for reasons that have been covered, like your reference to unit maths, ad-nauseum on this forum. And all kinds of biases besides effectiveness can creep into list composition (or any other human activity). It's EIGHT lists.

6 hours ago, lologrelol said:

OR you can accept that something constructive needs to be done about the monotony in tourney list builds.

Why? If tournament players want boring lists they can chose boring lists. They own their own list composition. Under the current format, if you tinker with one thing, they'll find the other new best thing and then they'll all take that. Personally I think the activation system itself needs a few permanent changes. New and varied factions will hopefully help, unless one of them is deemed "best".

6 hours ago, lologrelol said:

I think the easiest, and fastest, way to solve the issue, are some moderate points adjustments to certain units. These erratas would be placed in the back of the online rulebook. EASY.

The fastest way to resolve is without making unforeseen waves through the rest of the game is to publish army composition and other rules specific to the 2019 tournament, then the 2020, etc.

On 6/23/2019 at 5:15 AM, Derrault said:

Given that there’s only two possible corps options, and you have to have 3-6; I don’t find high numbers of that particularly meaningful.

Ie Rebel Troopers; Max of 24, min of 12; 21 is only slightly above average on that range. (18).

If there are two corps, the average "should" be 9 and not 18. After all, Fleet troopers are only 2 in these 4 lists. And if you take this analogy, there can be 0-3 support units, this means the average is 1.5. Or 0-24. 0 is clearly not even close to this average.
21 out of a max of 24 is really showing a problem. Nearly 50% of the rebel units are Rebel Troopers (21 out of 43)! From a pool of 16 units (if i see it right) this is a shocking ratio. Combined with the 28% (and max) for the Rebel Commandos (ST).
At all there were only used 5 different units at all on the rebel side (out of 16!). Honestly, i see a really big problem in this.

It is the same problem that Armada had, when Flotillas were not restricted. These small cheap ships were used to "buy" activations. The rebel transports had no real combat use. They were just cheap and a ship (and one activation because of this). There was an average of 2-3 if these in any list. And on top tables it even went up to an average of 3-4.

This game seems to suffer from the activation problem. More activations are better. this means cheaper units are better. Rebel Troopers seem to be have best cost/use ratio. On top is the problem that you need Troopers for some of the objectives. This means vehicles suffer double. They are less activations and are no troopers.
These 8 lists have an average of 10.25 activations.

One fix that might come is: Only 1/3 of the points can be spend in Corp units (this will be 267 points). And still 3-6 units. Currently an average of 350 points (at least in these 8 worlds lists) is used for the Corp units. If nearly half of the points are spend for Corp units (on top of the 3x sniper teams) and there has to be a Commander, there is just no room for Support or Heavy units.

46 minutes ago, Tokra said:

21 out of a max of 24 is really showing a problem. Nearly 50% of the rebel units are Rebel Troopers (21 out of 43)!

Rebel troopers are cheaper in real life, which usually had a huge influence in lists for other games over the decades.

46 minutes ago, Tokra said:

This game seems to suffer from the activation problem. More activations are better. this means cheaper units are better.

I think it does too. A real fix would be to the activation and/or scoring system. In Oldhammer there were serious pros and cons to taking 1x Forty Gretchin, vs taking 4x Ten Gretchin. One mob of 40 was way better but there were reasons why someone might prefer a few squads of 10. Legion doesn’t seem to have many pros and cons to things like that.

The activation system for Legion feels very Napoleonic or Ancient/Medieval to me, ie, un-Star Warsy. But unfortunately without the balancing mechanisms in those games which usually make armies with more and more potential actions grow increasingly unwieldy.

On 6/21/2019 at 1:49 PM, LunarSol said:

Not really. CIS doesn't need more Corps slots or anything for its swarm mechanics. They're built into the units themselves simply by having more models in each unit. That said, I'd love faction specific force requirements, if for no reason other than to let me run Luke, Leia, Han and Chewie together.

Of the ideas listed, 9 activation cap seems like the most beneficial to the game as a whole. I play a lot of systems and all the ones with alternating activations generally find themselves needing to something to enforce parity over time. Legion has a few decent solutions, but definitely feels like it could use more.

It would definitely hurt the CIS. The larger units are to help make up for the lack of effective die. The price of the units is to help turn them into a swarm, but if you limit the number of corps units to 4 and/or limit total activations to 9, they are completely useless as a faction.

On 6/21/2019 at 9:04 PM, lologrelol said:

I'd rather not have restrictions. But I don't think the designers are brave enough to do the points adjustments we need.

Not sure points adjustments are what are needed either, though I'd be much more on board with that than changes to force requirements. I see sniper spam as a much bigger problem than crops spam (I favor infantry heavy lists in every game I play anyway). One of the biggest ways I had hoped they'd start combating the sniper meta was artillery or indirect fire assets, basically Leia's bombardment in a unit that uses someone else's LOS. While harmful to most units, it would be death to snipers without some great defensive rolls.

12 hours ago, Thraug said:

Almost a year ago I mentioned this game suffered suffered from a severe lack of Tournament game completion and many of the top players laughed and said it was fine. It's not fine. I go to a lot of tournaments and it's pretty rare when games finish. Most don't even get past turn 4.

This I will absolutely agree on. I played in an RPQ yesterday, and only played one game to completion. The first game only went through round 3 (his 13 activation list likely contributed to that), and the second one into round 5, but ended before things were settled. We briefly discussed what our next turn's moves would have been, and even rolled for the more important attacks, and playing the last round would have changed the outcome of the game. Legion tournaments are long and tiring, but **** if they don't need to be a bit longer.

11 hours ago, Thraug said:

Having many units that generate and take as much or more damage than 1 unit of equivalent cost is why players don't use high cost vehicles. They reduce the following, all of which are important in competitive play:

- activations give control

- activations (# of units) win most objectives

This is why 3-4 corps are better than 1 ATST.

I understand the why. I just don’t like it. It leads to a homogeneous game devoid of creativity and list diversity.

6 hours ago, Tokra said:

One fix that might come is: Only 1/3 of the points can be spend in Corp units (this will be 267 points). And still 3-6 units. Currently an average of 350 points (at least in these 8 worlds lists) is used for the Corp units. If nearly half of the points are spend for Corp units (on top of the 3x sniper teams) and there has to be a Commander, there is just no room for Support or Heavy units.

Two potential fixes:

1. Pass mechanic. If your opponent has more activations than you, you may pass your activation.

2. Armies must have a minimum of four unit types, in addition to the limitations on number per unit type (So you can't have only commander, corps, special forces ... you need a fourth).

2 hours ago, Hawkstrike said:

Two potential fixes:

1. Pass mechanic. If your opponent has more activations than you, you may pass your activation.

2. Armies must have a minimum of four unit types, in addition to the limitations on number per unit type (So you can't have only commander, corps, special forces ... you need a fourth).

These are very interesting! Also made me think of changing "lowest points total" to "activations" for bidding.

56 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:

[...]Also made me think of changing "lowest points total" to "activations" for bidding.

That's... not totally crazy and actually quite simple!

20 minutes ago, CaptainRocket said:

That's... not totally crazy and actually quite simple!

Thanks. It's tricky to make adjustments without just creating a new best-list. Even if more activations is still "better" than winning the bid... I feel like being blue player gives at least some relative pros and cons to match your playstyle. As opposed to telling people what to do.

Ideally it would eventually be supplemented with an objective card or two that is neutral or negative towards squads. So that winning the bid matters a bit more for that dual AT-ST list, or 4 big heroes list, or whanot.

18 hours ago, smickletz said:

Alex Davy was talking about focusing on Organized Play formats now that they have Clone Wars and GCW stuff developed for the foreseeable future. They are particularly focusing on the 500pt style of game.

Having just recently trying playing casual games at 500 pts using the the format from the Imperial Discipline blog, I think this is welcome news.

10 hours ago, TauntaunScout said:

Rebel troopers are cheaper in real life, which usually had a huge influence in lists for other games over the decades.

That's a pretty good point. I'd be playing a lot more lists with 4-6 units of Fleet Troopers if they were in a Core set.

Alex on stream said Vader would "get some help" from future content ...

19 hours ago, Hawkstrike said:

Two potential fixes:

1. Pass mechanic. If your opponent has more activations than you, you may pass your activation.

2. Armies must have a minimum of four unit types, in addition to the limitations on number per unit type (So you can't have only commander, corps, special forces ... you need a fourth).

I don’t like the 2nd, because there are still a huge number of potential armies not being taken that would only use 3 ranks. (Ie Jyn and the Pathfinders, Krennic and maximum DTs, Palp and Max Royal guards..would you really want to prohibit that?)

210 Pappa Palpatine + 4x IRG (400) + 3x Stormtroopers (132) = 742

That’s barebones except for the Electrostaves; adding an e-web (55) really screws customization there.

1 hour ago, Derrault said:

I don’t like the 2nd, because there are still a huge number of potential armies not being taken that would only use 3 ranks.

Me neither. It excludes the two best lists everever. Veers, snow troopers and e-webs. Rebel Officer, veterans and tauntauns.