 
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 5 posts ] |
|
Testing new Armylists |
|
BlackLegion
|
Post subject: Testing new Armylists  Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 12:14 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
 |
 |
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
|
|
I have noticed that a brig number of playtesting for experimental armylist is against other experimental armylists.
And i think this will generate problems.
If ypou balance iw the Tyranids with the Tau,so yopu have two armies wich have a 50% win ratio against eachother. But if they play against one of the armies in the core rulebook they could be under- or overpowered.
The armies in the core rulebook are considered to be balanced against each other (only the SM seem to nead some finetuning, but nothing fundamental), and all new armies should look at them first to balance against.
So while games with Tyranids against Tau are fun, they run the risk to end with another version of swordwind, where all armies are slighty overpowered against core rulebook armies.
Any commends?
_________________ We are returned! http://www.epic-wargaming.de/
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Evil and Chaos
|
Post subject: Testing new Armylists Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 12:42 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
|
|
That's a worthy concern... lots of players who are interested in playtesting tend to have other friends who are also interested in playtesting.
When playtesting something new, I always try and play with one 'stock' army that's relatively set, like Marines or IG... sure it means I don't get to gribble it up all the time with my 'nids, but it also gives my opponents a chance to throw their experimental lists on the table.
The only exception are the modular titans, which most Imperial players in my gaming circle have been messing around with.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Markconz
|
Post subject: Testing new Armylists Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 8:10 am |
|
| Purestrain |
 |
 |
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand
|
|
I generally agree with Hena. ?I also think it is important to remember than only Orks and Imperial Guard are really unaltered 'core' lists at this stage of EpicA's development. We need to test armies against more than just these two lists.
1.7 eldar and the commonly floated marine proposals look to be fairly close to what their next iteration will be.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
epilgrim
|
Post subject: Testing new Armylists Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 1:39 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 12:28 pm
Posts: 362
|
|
I like to run very small tests with core units first to get the feel of each troop type.
That gives you a solid benchmark.
Ideally as was done with EpicA in the initial playtests thats how this was accomplished. the training scenarios in the book are the roadmap for this style of development.
at present taking SM, IG and Ork and running isolated tests on equal points of similar troops give you a good feel for the larger potential of an experimemtal list. Once you resolve the core units of any army it is much easier to build up the rest of the units into a coherent defensible army list.
Additionally if you love math you can develop a Combat Effectiveness Factor (CEF) grid that can give you raw data on how any troop formation performs in Shooting, CC and FF both attacking and defending against any other similar formation. Admittedly this test cannot balance out special rules, but it is a statisically accurate baseline for comparing formation size and estimated costs.
_________________
Squat/Demiurg Army Co-Champion (in cahoots with Jaldon)
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 5 posts ] |
|
