Competitive Unit Congress

[Dignan]

Originally Posted by DrLivingston

Jeez, sorry Dignan.

Thought it was only the vote itself that was to remain secret!

After reading your post I understand what you mean about group think a lot better.

Oops!

Won't be doing that again!

No big deal, this is a new process and I'm still trying to see what works. I think that keeping everything secret might give us better results. I'd like to try it for a vote or two and see what we get. It might not be that big an issue. Maybe in the future we'll find out that public discussion during playtesting isn't that bad. We'll see.

Again, I'm glad you got some good playtesting in and I'm glad you're excited about the process. It's all a good sign.

[CheddarLimbo]

Such a tyrant. You can tell you really hurt his feelings because he didn't put some funny comment in his Edit line...

[Killz]

Originally Posted by Darkmage7a

Or you can proxy the units. Just use similarly shaped units and print off the cards then play with the changes presented here. It's no big deal and shouldn't be problem unless you run into LoS issues. People do it all the time before purchasing new units to get a good idea of how well they play.

If you have the protectors of ullar they are close enough that it shouldn't matter size wise. Just about medium figure is close enough in size to use as the gorrillas, marro drudge should do fine.

Ok, i'll do that.

[southwest ninja]

Would you mind if we posted army ideas that involved the units we are testing? I wouldn't see that as influencing anyone's opion, just maybe allowing them to look at the unit from an angle they may not have considered.

[Dignan]

Originally Posted by southwest ninja

Would you mind if we posted army ideas that involved the units we are testing? I wouldn't see that as influencing anyone's opion, just maybe allowing them to look at the unit from an angle they may not have considered.

Yeah, that's not a bad idea as it might help other people with their testing. I don't see a problem with something like that.

[Arcus]

Originally Posted by Dignan

Yeah, that's not a bad idea as it might help other people with their testing. I don't see a problem with something like that.

Excellent! I will be testing the following:

Gorillinator Test Army: 500 pts
Gorillinators x3 - 270
Nakita Agents - 390
Krav Maga - 490
Isamu - 500

EI Test Army: 500 pts
EI x2 - 280
Kiova - 370
Krav Maga - 470
Guilty - 500

[Dignan]

Originally Posted by Arcus

Excellent! I will be testing the following:

Gorillinator Test Army: 500 pts
Gorillinators x3 - 270
Nakita Agents - 390
Krav Maga - 490
Isamu - 500

EI Test Army: 500 pts
EI x2 - 280
Kiova - 370
Krav Maga - 470
Guilty - 500

Looks good. Keep in mind that you dont have to pick one army build and stick with it throughout testing. As things progress, feel free to adjust your build and see how the units perform with different cheerleaders.

[Killometer]

Here is the first army I will be testing a varient unit with (today, hooray!):

G'nators x4
Skahen
Otonashi
Isamu
500/15

With the bump in Attack and Defense the G'nators seem to become a legitimate threat on their own and less reliant on the Nakita's Movement Bonding. I plan on taking advantage of their awesome speed by either seizing key points on the map and sniping, or, if facing a WTF or slow melee army, constantly moving out of my opponents range. I thought of wrapping them in Bacon, but my strategy would be severely hindered if I tried to keep them in an aura, so I took an additional squad instead.

I had an EI army, too, until I remembered that they were 140 points, not 110.

[rednax]

Just a few other G'Nator armies:

Nakitas 120
Skahen 120
G'nators x3 270
Total 510

Nakitas 120
Laglor 110
G'Nators x3 270
Total 500

I'm not sure if Laglor is right for the G'Nators, but it's worth a try. The Nakitas allow you to get your ranged pod in action easier, through Movement Bonding. Set it up early, and they should have ease keeping height.

Or what about testing the two together?

EI x2 280
G'Nators x3 270
Total 550

[Gulp]

Just curious, do you think we're going to get a different playtesting result if we stray too far from a 500-pt army? Are some non-viable units going to become viable in 700-pt situations?

Overall, my question is less about 700-pt armies and more about whether or not we should agree that armies should be between 500-540 points.

[rym]

That makes sense to me, Gulp. Seems we'd be wanting to test armies that fall into the viable, tournament-worthy categroy, and 700 points would be too much for that.

I'd think you could make anything viable at 700 points.

I'd say anywhere from 450 points to 550 points, as I don't know many tournaments that run (much) higher or lower than that.

[CheddarLimbo]

I agree. The original Errata thread Dignan created was done so with the intent to make figures more playable in a tournament setting specifically. I think 450-550 is a good spread.