Page 3 of 4

[ 48 posts ]

Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Tau Air
dptdexys	Post subject: Tau Air Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 12:35 am
Brood Brother Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:39 pm Posts: 1974 Location: South Yorkshire	The tau have troops that very good in FF (nowhere near as good as some but good anyway). If tau players cannot manage to set up situations where a 5+ first strike FF and a 5+ MW FF attacks (especially in clipping assaults or against broken formations) are not a viable option then i cannot think what you would call viable options. Crisis and stealth formations have been excellent in support of assaults when i've used them and are a great choice when assaulting especially from an orca (clipping is by far the best option,it is the only way I will ?use them in assaults) against a broken and non fearless formation .
Top

Honda	Post subject: Tau Air Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 3:45 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm Posts: 1891 Location: Katy, Republic of Texas	? Originally posted by Honda Although this is somewhat interesting, the two facts do not mean anything when compared to each other. We had this discussion on the Battlestats program topic and what those statistics represent. So, out of interest, when we feel there is a problem, what sort of evidence do you accept?

I accept all kinds of evidence, especially if the testing conditions are consistent and applied equally across all the data.

However, basing assumptions where different conditions applied to the various results is going to provide skewed results...hence the comments regarding the Battlestats program. The results reported apply to multiple versions of lists, some of which were openly acknowledged as being unbalanced both in favor of and against the tested lists.

So was any effort applied to re-fight those same battles with updated lists to find out if the results were different? Not to my knowledge, everyone has just moved on. So the data posted is time sensitive, in that it might have some applications at a given point in time, but as soon as you move on from that point, then the data has less significance.

Wins scored with v1.0, 2.0, 3.0, even 4.0 no longer have any statistical weight given that we are in a later version of the list and that no regression testing has occurred.

And that's just one variable that has changed with the games reported. Next, you'd have to go back to see what the game conditions were. Were the experience levels with the rules and the lists equal? We don't know, so it is possible that an experienced player matched up against a non-experienced player, thus adding another level of complexity to any analysis.

So again, the Battlestats are interesting data points, but not relevant to current development.


You've rejected statistical evidence/tournament experience as unreliable.


Again, I've not rejected the data, only applied less of value to old data than others have. There is a difference.


When games are done with a specific, possibly "abusive" ist in play (take 5 Aces, for instance), we get players arguing there's an agenda at work to "neuter" their forces.


I think if you go back and read the threads, TRC reported a possible abuse. There were challenges to that assumption and he then backed up his statement with a set of conditions (i.e. games) to prove his point.

I applaud his effort. He convinced me, because of his testing, that it was possible to abuse the TS. Where our opinion still diverges is where the assumption that TS can abuse all armies. Of that assumption, I still contend that horde armies would welcome a Tau player who over expends in air assets to the detriment of his ground forces.


It's frustrating that every time we try to discuss a potential problem, it gets rejected out of hand, especially with comparisons to SW lists as justification (where at least 2 out of 3 are being "adjusted" in the next Rules Review).

Those of us pointing out potential problems are trying to help produce a balanced list, to try and minimise the amount of adjustments that will take place in the future.


If you are willing to express an opinion with as much conviction as you have, then why should you be surprised when others do the same thing if they should disagree with you?


In fact, I'm getting a growing feeling that if you're aiming to play a list when it is completed, you should probably play *against* it when you're testing - it gives you a real grasp of the strengths & weaknesses from the opponents perspective, and helps to get the feel of a list right from an opponents eyes. IMO, this is the major problem that befell the Swordwind lists - too much tweaking was done on the basis of those playing the list felt was needed, and not enough attention was paid to those who were having to face the list.



I don't disagree with the above. I think that's how you learn more about your army.