Competitive Unit Congress

[Paronychodon]

Originally Posted by Dignan

Testing Rules

• Only one unit with proposed errata may be tested per match. Matches between two armies with proposed errata changes shall not count.

Does this rule only count for proposed erratae? Once they are accepted, are we required to use the modified version if we field the unit.

For example (and perhaps most pertinently), I want to see how a proposed errata does with (or against) rats. Do the rats cost 40 or 55 points?

[Dignan]

Originally Posted by Paronychodon

Does this rule only count for proposed erratae? Once they are accepted, are we required to use the modified version if we field the unit.

For example (and perhaps most pertinently), I want to see how a proposed errata does with (or against) rats. Do the rats cost 40 or 55 points?

If you test with the rats for the CUC, they now cost 55 and can be used when testing a currently proposed change. Any unit that has had successfully passed errata can have it's changed form used in any future testing.

That part of the bylaws is only meant to prevent two currently proposed units from being tested during the same match.

[DrLivingston]

Originally Posted by Dignan

By Laws

Congress composition
The Competitive Errata Congress is composed of Council Members and Representatives. Any member of the Heroscape community can become a Representative by participating in playtesting the proposed errata, submitting a valid vote (explained below), and meeting the required prerequisites for said vote. Council Members are selected over time based on their contribution to the process and their efforts throughout the site.

Member Duties
Representatives and Council Members shall participate in playtesting the proposed errata and turning in votes. Representatives can abstain from as many votes as they like. Council Members must not abstain from more than 50% of the errata votes over a 3 month span. Failure to reach this level of participation shall result in Council Members being demoted to Representative status.

Council Members are the only members of the Congress that can directly proposed errata to be playtested. Representatives are free to discuss and suggest any possible errata, but do not have the direct power to propose errata.

There's more in that second post.

Basically anyone can playtest and vote. If someone playtests and votes a lot than they get to start making proposed changes to figures.

The more games you playtest a particular change to a figure/unit, the more weight is given to your vote for that proposed change.

Anyone is invited to discuss changes they'd like to see.

There's a lot of really good Sudema ideas floating around right now...

[Gulp]

Sounds good. Nice work, Dignan. Tonight I'm going to be trying some units out. Probably the EI with Kiova bonding.

500 point army:

EIx 2 - 280
Kiova - 90 = 370

Hmm... 130 points left. Any suggestions? I was thinking Krug and Parsley (Isamu).

[rym]

Is there any chance of the Council deciding on the errata'd unit(s) to playtest before December 7th?

[Dignan]

Originally Posted by rym

Is there any chance of the Council deciding on the errata'd unit(s) to playtest before December 7th?

I picked the start of the next month since we are so close anyway and it makes things nice and neat. I'll probably end up setting up the playtest unit by Dec 1. Why don't you mess around with some North Texas Shootout ideas until then?

Are non-council members welcome to post here and have their opinion heard?

Yep, everyone is free to post their ideas and discuss errata here. The council members are just the ones who get to pick what goes on the table for errata.

Is there a limit to the number of members in the council or representatives groups?

I will probably stop the council members at 6. My plan is to add one a month (giving them the honors of picking the errata for the month they come on) and then stopping there. After that, we'll probably only add council members as they drop out. 6 seems like a nice number as it gives council members 2 opportunities a year to formally submit their errata.

I don't plan on capping the representative pool. One of the keys to good playtesting is getting as many games in as possible. As long as people are doing "valid" playtesting, I don't see a reason to cap it. If the pool gets very large, I may adjust the weight system a little bit more so that council members aren't "drowned out".

I'm not sure if I agree with the secret ballot system, for example BoV has a healthy record and doesn't require such measures.

I actually wouldn't mind having the BoV do secret voting. In my opinion, group think can be detrimental to getting unique perspectives and keeping an open mind. I don't want to see some people turn in votes before others even get around to playing the errata. Seeing people's votes ahead of time will color your view and expectations and effect your vote (at least to some extent). I'd like to keep everyone's votes as unique and individual as possible.

Hopefully it works well. If it turns out that it's not working, we can definitely tweak the system (that goes for anything in the by laws). It's not like I think that I created the best system on the first pass . I'm sure there will be some hiccups once we get rolling, but we can fix them on the fly.

[DrLivingston]

This looks really good.

At first I thought it would move too slowly, but after reading through it a few times I realized that by the third month there will be six figures being tested/voted on.

And six at once seems right.

I would also like to know what the first two figures will be...

What do you want to see posted here versus the old thread?

If I have ideas for making changes, do I post them here or there?

Or what exactly?

[Darkmage7a]

Couple simple questions.

Are non-council members welcome to post here and have their opinion heard?

Is there a limit to the number of members in the council or representatives groups? (sorry if it's listed I didn't notice any, not there there needs to be)

I'm not sure if I agree with the secret ballot system, for example BoV has a healthy record and doesn't require such measures.

Originally Posted by Gulp

Sounds good. Nice work, Dignan. Tonight I'm going to be trying some units out. Probably the EI with Kiova bonding.

500 point army:

EIx 2 - 280
Kiova - 90 = 370

Hmm... 130 points left. Any suggestions? I was thinking Krug and Parsley (Isamu).

You could throw in some ranged squads, Nakita, AE, 2x Stingers, Krav, Kaemon Awa etc. Or just playtest it as a 510 army and play 3xEI + Kiova. Although I heard Atlaga wasn't too bad either. heh

[ollie]

I'm happy with the units as they are so I don't expect to contribute a great deal (but I'll probably keep an eye on the thread because talking about Heroscape is fun).

However, I did want to suggest that you change "errata" to "adjustments" or "boosts" or something. Errata are errors, usually minor typographical ones, and usually acknowledged and corrected by the author/creator. I don't think that's what you're claiming to be fixing: you're making changes to perfectly correct units so that they function better in a different environment to the one for which they were designed, right?

[Darkmage7a]

Originally Posted by ollie

I'm happy with the units as they are so I don't expect to contribute a great deal (but I'll probably keep an eye on the thread because talking about Heroscape is fun).

However, I did want to suggest that you change "errata" to "adjustments" or "boosts" or something. Errata are errors, usually minor typographical ones, and usually acknowledged and corrected by the author/creator. I don't think that's what you're claiming to be fixing: you're making changes to perfectly correct units so that they function better in a different environment to the one for which they were designed, right?

Good point Ollie.
Does anyone have ideas for a better descriptive term? HA = Heroscape Adjusted

[CheddarLimbo]

Well, I understand that the formal process hasn't begun but from an efficiency standpoint, if you're going to go to the trouble to test some of the errata, wouldn't it be a good idea to regulate the testing anyway in order to get results we can use later on?

Or do I have a stick up my butt about this?

[Grungebob]

Originally Posted by CheddarLimbo

Or do I have a stick up my butt

Um, I imagine you would know it if you did.