So, while you guys are arguing on the internet I've done 2 battle reports so far testing out the new changes. I anyone wants to have a game ov erVassal I'm up for it. I'm available from 08:00 AM CET to 2:00 PM CET tommorow and theese next 3 hours tonight (it's now 7:00 PM CET).

I prefer talking over Skype when playing and do some bad jokes in between failing activations. But if you're the shy type i can write text in vassal too. My skype handle is mordoten.

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam

^mordoten^ #winning

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!

Interesting choice. 100 points cheaper, gives good firepower (4x MW under E-Uk version of the exarch weapons) 8x 10+FF with the storm serpents giving some protection to the 5+ Aspects. The SHawks also allow daisy-chaining to claim objectives.

The Swooping Hawks are slightly less resilient and could be replaced by one or two Shining Spears for different abilities, but like many different Aspect choices it is a case of different player styles.

Your point Kyuss being that this formation costs 400 points for 8x aspects in 2x transports as compared with 6x aspects in 3x transports. Not a bad comparison, though they do work slightly differently as you appreciate

As I said before I would drop the guardian war host…. To support….

Sorry, I’m not sniping….I done testing with some of the elder changes, many moons ago and before any of this and Great BT debate….. and have not written any reports and so have said nothing on the results, since well I don’t have the data, just my memory and gut feeling (Some of them were mention to Tiny-Tim about 3 years ago roughly, by email, when it was just me and Mic).. I know dam well the Void spinner points increase will not fix the bloody issue….case in point, if I use Mic wonderful list he took to cancon17, its down a activation and I would bet my left arm, he drop the night spinners from the original list and keep the rest… That’s why I stated it’s a Band-Aid fix….

So after 4 years of flogging a dead horse, someone realizes my POV....That’s stop the arguing and do the bloody Reports….. Although using vassal or some other program to play remote games should be on every Sub-ac and AC list to do too….…..

Stay safe..

_________________
Regards
Greg

*************************************************

Not against change, so long as it done fairly and no one is left behind....

I'm human and not a !@#$%^# Robot..

Yes I pulled the changes from the vote list and just submitted them directly.

- Broken portals giving a BM to formations using them.
- Points drop for the Harvester engines: 600 points.
- Pylon moving to the Harvester section.
- Living Metal = 4+ inv. But getting to make the inv save against each point of TK damage rather than just reducing it to 1. 
- Points drop for Monolith Phalanx and Maniple formations by 25pts. 
- Points drop for Eques Maniples 50 points.
- Leader added to Pylon

As listed on the play test thread. Still need to get around to uploading the revised PDF.

_________________
Necron AC (click to see current Necron list threads)
Toronto Wargaming Group

I'm confused here, is living metal changing to 4+ and a 6+ inv save or is it getting a 4++ invulnerable save?

Also, the change to save each point of damage seems like it makes cron stuff more squishy. Will there be a point adjustment later?

_________________
-Vaaish

Living metal - the unit with living metal ability gains an invulnerable of save of 4+. In the case of TK weapons this save can be taken against each point of TK damage.

Harvested engines drop to 600 points and monolith formations dropped 25 points.

_________________
Necron AC (click to see current Necron list threads)
Toronto Wargaming Group

Mordoten, seriously, you need to quit being dismissive of criticism and address some issues with your system before it is even worth participating in this.

You have approximately 90 proposed changes spanning almost every list in NetEA. Considering some changes touch multiple lists and need testing in each list, I think conservatively it's more like 150 separate changes. That is an extremely large number.

To be even remotely useful, a single battle report can probably only incorporate a few of those changes at a time in a test list against an unchanged opponent as a control. If you want any kind of useful data, you probably need to test each change 3-5 or so times (and even that is worthless statistically).

So if battle reports are the magic solution, how do you propose organizing, tracking, and cataloging the hundreds and hundreds of battle reports you now require to move forward?

What you brush off as "sniping" is legitimate concern that your process is utter chaos and hasn't solved anything. What you call "arguing on the internet" would be reasonable debate if you would bother to engage.

With some actual public discussion on these proposals, we could prioritize a smaller number of changes per army list as worth considering. From those we could probably work through which ones can be accepted with zero/minimal play testing and which ones require rigorous tests.

You have to face the fact that you can't suddenly dump 90+ changes on us with no discussion and then flog us to churn out battle reports mindlessly. You need to organize this effort, structure it, and provide some way for us to triage what of this mess is even worth trying on the table.

Dude, seroiusly. I'm not gonna waste time debating you since it's pretty clear you think that what we're doing is bad on every level. Whats the point? You're not gonna change your mind about it and frankly the tone of your posts just pisses me off since they are quite rude and condesending.

So you keep on whining about evry aspect of this work if you think thats a constructive thing to do. I'll try to organize playtests, vassal games and dissucions that are constructive and positive. Because thats something i feel can help NetEa development.

Have a great weekend.

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam

I apologize for being salty about this and coming off condescending and rude.

I am trying to offer constructive feedback on the process. I'm also working on some charts showing the effect of the Baneblade changes that I think will be useful (more useful than another battle report anyway).

I'm not concern-trolling when I say it looks like you've decided to eat the whole elephant at once. If you want this to work, I think you need to figure out a systematic way to vet these changes. If you want to get the community involved in discussion or playtesting, you have to provide structure and leadership beyond what I've seen in this thread.

Good luck, and have a nice weekend yourself.

I've also submitted a few changes to the ERC based on some proposals from this project

I really can't be arsed getting into arguments about the relative merits of whatever system we use for testing

I will just say that the old system was too conservative and the new system may be a little too liberal, that is bound to happen as a backlash

I'd just like to see testing of proposed changes done in isolation to evaluate their effects more scientifically.... if you're testing the 'everybody now gets a volcano cannon' army against the 'everybody now has a 2+ INV save' army then you may not see the wider effects

I think a better approach would be to test proposed changes for one army against an unchanged solid army that the opponent is comfortable using.... for example if you tested all the eldar changes against me playing sautekh necrons for the first time ever, that wouldn't be particularly useful either

let's all calm down and try to be mutually constructive about things

_________________
NetEA Space Marine, Imperial Fists and Blood Angels Army Champion

NetEA Red Corsairs Army Champion

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!

I've started a new thread to collect up Baneblade discussion and test results (for the NDC proposal and the original proposed changes). I've also run some numbers as promised to see how the changes affect damage output point-for-point.

Check it all out in the Baneblade Test Thread, Part II.

If you have a battle report whose results you want me to add, please comment in the thread with a link to the batrep. If you have anything to add to the discussion, feel free to do so - mathhammer and theoryhammer are very much welcome.

I'm not sure how I feel about this NDC thing as a concept, probably a good idea... the execution though has been bad.

The 18 page Baneblade thread was constructive, no one was loosing their tempers, test games were being played, there was no major rush... in many ways a success.... that does seem to have been undermined.

If this private committee is doing a push on some intensive testing and development and aiming to show how things could be expedited, at least in the case of the Steel Legion list why couldn't that have started with what is already being tested by the community rather than coming up with a different set of changes?

I was concerned I'd missed a thread or communication but as far as I can tell I've not.

I don't mean to single your post out, but can we please stop pretending that battle reports can ever constitute "data"? As you say yourself, there is so much randomness in a game that they are worthless statistically. All we're really doing is trying out some stuff and seeing if it feels wrong or not.

At the end of the day people are only going to playtest the changes that they are interested in (ones they either like or want to stop). Frankly everyone has always been able to playtest any changes they want, and this is no different - just a bunch of people getting together to find some things they collectively are interested to test, and then doing it. It makes no difference if you personally think the changes are not the ones that should be implemented. If the community doesn't like the changes in the end they they won't make it into NetEA lists - no harm no foul.

Relax people

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list