In general i don´t see much well UK lists as i like to have all the freedom i can get on choosing the units, but i can appreciate them for tournaments to reduce the number of possible craziness.
flyingthruwater wrote:
Its horses for courses to me. EpicUK lists are tighter on options and therefore easier to balance but for a casual game NetEA gives a lot more options.
kyussinchains wrote:
RugII wrote:
it's too easy to get trapped in/ trap it in a draw.
I think that is a problem faced by most large-WE lists to be honest, whether they are NetEA or EpicUK, take the Ferals for example, their 57% Draw rate is
massively higher than any comparable list with a similar number of games played, althought AMTL is only slightly above average at 36% Draws
From my test games of the NetEA OGBM list, it seems to be a list which is tailor-made for getting winning draws, and many have pointed out similar issues with AMTL (either flavour)
If you lock your BTS objective away into a nigh-unkillable 8-12DC fearless war engine and park a similar war engine between the T&H objectives in your opponent's half, it's almost impossible for some armies to beat because I get the feeling that EA was never designed with all-WE armies in mind....
This part, and now as statistics have been brought in the conversation, makes me think of the difference between what should be and what the data or has happened provide. For example we all know that a less varied list is easier to balance, but the truth is that usually the lists that break the game are usually around or mostly around a single unit, like the Thunderbrick list, Gorgons on DKOK, the Overlords in Squats some time ago, or maybe even Flamers on Chaos.
There is also a bit of that in the discussions about the Titan lists getting more wins by draws than others: it is said a lot that these lists are mainly about winning draws and logic tells us that but the data says that are only a third (both the UK's and apart mine on NetEA's OGBM list) while the average of all the UK lists is 30,06% so it is just a 5-6% difference, and apart from that there is also the issue on why there is many conversations, ideas to fix it and efforts about this issue when it comes to Titan lists, but if looking at the UK page there is several lists with even higher percentages of wins by points but i never heard a thing about it being a problem, like Tyranids (36%), Squats (35%) Iron Warriors (45%), or LaTD (37%), and 5-10 more with almost the same percentages as AMTL's 36%. Only Ferals with its huge 57% gets talks.
This gets me to questions: Why there is much of a perception when it is just a 5-6% more? Why there is so much perception of this problem on Titan lists compared to the others that have as much or more of a problem? Is it maybe more psychological as any other lists is easy to see them crumble and losing guys but a Titan list will finish many games without losing a single unit sometimes even if losing, and they are still as dangerous as they have begun the game? Is it that the reliance on a few TK and MW to deal with them makes the situation more hopeless even if the end result is similar?
flyingthruwater wrote:
Wheres EpicFR on the list? Their take on Biel Tan seems pretty reasonable to be honest
FERC has some interesting things, but has many strange parts that are hard to understand or that look like they weren´t tested much and put by gut feeling, and others like for example the latest with FERC Third Phase Tau, that it is even more powerful than NetEA Vior'la with several units that got a huge change in power for the same points. I suppose it is from them being in a closed process and also with barely not contact with other metas, which reduces the number of points of view and makes pushing strange changes easier.