No, he wants to freeze the list and declair it finished.
Just as the Steel Legion list is finished.

Ie: not to be changed again without a great and pressing need, to be evaluated once per year for the NetEA Armybook like any other finished NetEA army list.

I stood behind Honda when he proposed his testing schedule because although it was more ambitious than the testing schedule I proposed (a 4-6 month period, rather than 3 months), he also committed to a more active update schedule.

That update schedule not having been kept to (for whatever reason), I believe a 1-2 month extension of the testing period in order to nail down a few finalities is not unreasonable.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I think its alright, though I'm interested in seeing the effect of any crisis commander upping the init to 1+.

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

I have no problems with schedules and with Champions wanting to run things "their way", but when what I need to work on isn't even available, how can the "boss" also say "and you've got to the end of the month."

It's not that Honda wants to change the schedule, it's that he *doesn't* want to flex on it, that is the issue.

There are typos in the playtest doc that impinge on play... at least I *think* they are typos, but I don't know unless I get a corrected playtest document, because other changes-that-look-like-typos are in there too.

Additionally, Honda has said (in regard to rules, not deadlines) "No decisions have been made.", so, I don't even know *what* I'm supposed to be playtesting, what problems have been found, and what direction things are going in... but, I've got until Dec 31, 2009 to get my games in... but I don't even know what I'm playing.  

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

Not wanting to dogpile on, but I agree with most of the above.

Working without an updated list makes any meaningful playtest difficult. In the Tau Version 6.0 thread, I asked for clarification on the weapon range for Stealths. Assuming that it's not in fact 3000cm (30m), there is a significant difference in effectiveness between 30cm (I believe TRC thought that was correct) and 15cm (my belief, and the one on the datafax). And this is far from the only issue with incorrect/confusing stats.

While Chroma is slightly incorrect on the math (it's actually only 66% chance of getting a BM on Stealths), my opinion is the same as his. For a unit that really doesn't have a choice but to get close (even at 30cm), having a more than half chance of being 3+ means I'd doubt I'd consider them again.

For Crisis Initiative, I'll agree wholeheartedly with Chroma's call. What kind of empyrical evidence is being required? Honda, you've stated you don't want opinion, that only playtests matter. As Chroma says, it's hard to prove that, as you're essentially asking people to play a sub-optimal army to prove it's not worth it. But would that mean the individual formations are sub-optimal, or that the synergy is the problem, or an external factor? I've played 2 games with the current Tau, and did mention it. If I were to play another (given the remaining time alloted), I doubt I would field more than the one squad of Crisis with Supreme. It's difficult to know how to prove a negative* but Honda, if you've got suggestions on how to prove it?

Morgan Vening

We did try a couple of multi-Crisis formation games, the Tau lost. *shrug*

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Thanks for the support, MV, but not sure where you're getting that 66% from... though I believe I misused "average" up there... should've been "likely" get at least one Blast marker.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

But, is that because of the 2+ Initiative, or because of other factors, like a lack of synergy, poor application, or because you would have lost regardless.

IE, would you have won had it been 1+? That's essentially the argument being raised. And did you play it as if it were 1+ and failed as a consequence, or were you more conservative due to the 2+ Init? How would your opponent's strategies changed? It's really hard to answer these in a way that gets a meaningful answer that isn't just speculative opinion. It's hard getting actual proof without a much larger testing pool.

Morgan Vening

Zombocom just ran the numbers for me and tells me that if you roll 6 dice, the probability of rolling any 1's (including rolling one '1' or six '1's, or anywhere in between) is 66.5%


So two thirds of the time your Stealth formation will have at least one blast marker, and will activate on a 3+.


*shrug*

It might have made the difference between what was in fact a walkover and a more even game.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

First off, I would appreciate it if the tone of this note drops down to a more civil level.



So let's look at what I said back on 10/06/09:



So in the context of what I stated, this update excuse that is being brought up doesn't really hold water. We have discussed a number of issues (e.g. Skyrays, Crisis initiative, Stealth costs, Recons, Barracudas, popcorn lists) and to date, the only real change that has surfaced that will be adopted is the Guided Missile Pods on the Barracuda and that has only been recently. Crisis initiatives not withstanding, the other issues did not either pan out or arrive at a significant positional change to require implementing into the list, hence no changes.

As stated in the original post, if there were no changes made, then the list stands as is, it's the version you test.

I have already acknowledged that there are typos in the descriptor boxes, but that the reference sheet is correct. That's what I use in my games. It does not prevent playtesting.

The fact that I am asking people to test the +2 initiative Crisis formation is not to punish them, it is to identify how significant the change is. Of course 1+ would be better, there's no denying that.

We've had one report where a 2+ Crisis suit failed a roll and the player believed that contributed to the loss of the game. Fine. I can accept that. We recently had a game where the 2+ Crisis suit did not fail any of it's initiative rolls and the Tau won. So what does that tell me?

Jack, bupkis, nothing. We're dead even. All I really know is that most of the users would prefer it if the formation were more powerful. Is anyone really surprised by that?

That's why I am asking for testing and analysis. It's not to see if you can beat someone in a tournament setting, it's to find out what the overall impact is to the formation and the list. It's work and I don't deny it. But that is what testing turns into sometimes. Real work.

And I am aware of the time of year. I am happily married and have four children. They are more important to me than this silly game, so of course family always trumps gaming. Each of you should do what your conscious dictates at this time. Period. No questions from me, no accusations, you do what you think is right.

I will do the same.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Chance of a unit not getting a BM on Teleport = 5/6 (83.33%)
Attempts made = 6
Chance of a formation not getting a BM on Teleport = (5/6)^6 = 33.33%
Chance of a formation getting a BM = 1-((5/6)^6) = 66.66%

Essentially, the math works out overall. While yes, a pure statistical spread is one BM every time (I roll a 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6), statistics don't work like that. For every time you roll multiple 1's, there's a similarly proportional time you won't roll any.

So likely is more than 50%, which it is, but doesn't mean guaranteed, which it isn't.

Morgan Vening

I've made this suggestion in other threads but I'll make it here again just in case...

When you are testing things like Crisis suits at 1+ or 2+, do this:

Instead of a full blown Battle Report, keep track of the Crisis Suits only.  What you rolled, and if the initiative would have made a difference.  Take pictures.  Take notes.   the end of the game (or during, depending on how competitive you are feeling),  do a little theory hammering with your opponent, "Well, if my formation moved here, what would you have done?"  Or "If I had failed with my suits, what would you have done with that destroyed formation?"  

Something like that is going to take up a LOT less time than a full batrep and will be more conducive to working through this argument.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

Example: is it intentional that Hammerheads lose their Smart Missile Systems/Secondary Weapons?

I don't recall that being discussed and didn't notice they were "gone" until I looked at the reference sheet.

I don't see why it seems so difficult to get a revised/corrected document posted, since it should be easier than a version change.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

Skyrays - Tested to my knowlege, notably by TRC. Recommended 25pt price upgrade but did not utterly dominate the game. Known to be a daft choice against an arty-heavy IG army.

Crisis Initiative - Tested by several groups. Greater majority of players asked then, and are still asking, for their initiative to be returned to 1+. It was designed, costed and tested to be 1+ in the E series too.

Stealth Costs - Extensively tested (they feature in almost every batrep and reported games), not found to be a problem with init 2+ AFAIK. Known concerns that they are not properly reflecting the background with init 2+.

Recons - Mixed opinions from testers. Not tested to destruction in the classic TRC style yet.

Barracudas - Tested and soon to be modified (and modified stats tested too).

Popcorn lists - Not tested to destruction yet.


So I'd say that most issues raised have been tested.


I believe there may be some typos in the ref sheet too. Didn't someone mention Hammerheads?



The change is greatly significant, in that nobody is taking them anymore unless they're looking to prove the point that they're now sub-par (and lose the game).

Only Shas'O formations are being taken (and upgraded, because the upgrades oddly become better for the same price by attaching them to the Shas'O formation)


There was also a game I wrote a report on where the Tau player took two Crisis formations and got utterly crushed.


I don't even play Tau, I just play against them a lot.

And I'd prefer Crisis formations to be more useful.


Does doing the right thing for the community include postponing the deadline for another month or two?

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Well I have to say Honda, most of the posts here seem civil. There's no sledging just simple facts being stated. Of course as most of it is weighted against your views I can see how you could take it personally even if it's not. I apologise if anything I've posted makes you feel this way however.


And so far people have given feedback and you seem stuck on your own view still - not an attack just an observation. So the feedback we give seems ignored when the weight of our own views differs to yours and nothing changes.

As others have mentioned a few times now - why would we trial an inferior formation to prove a negative? Surely trialling the 1+ to see if it's underpriced makes more sense?