C3V Public Playtesting Tips & Tricks

[Arch-vile]

I like the double glyph idea, it makes the game less one-sided because you know one team won't get a better glyph. I'll have to try doubles on my next map. Wannok does seem like fun and not too overpowered, but definitely worth getting. That seems to be the one to try next.

Right now I'm playing on Turret Rocks, which has the fixed glyph of Astrid. I definitely like the fixed glyph so I know the map is perfectly balanced, but doubling glyphs should be good too. Thanks Caps and Viegon for the help.

[Sheep]

When you guys playtests do you require that it be a BoV map? Or can it be just any map built for Tourney play? Would like to know for HoSS.

[Tiranx]

Originally Posted by heroscaper2010

When you guys playtests do you require that it be a BoV map? Or can it be just any map built for Tourney play? Would like to know for HoSS.

My feeling on this is that BoV is preferred because they ask for the map that you played on and a BoV map is the easiest map for them to picture/understand. However, if I play on a map we just throw together, I will take a picture and send it in with the report on the figure. That's just my opinion though and I am just a play tester.

[Viegon]

Originally Posted by Tiranx

My feeling on this is that BoV is preferred because they ask for the map that you played on and a BoV map is the easiest map for them to picture/understand. However, if I play on a map we just throw together, I will take a picture and send it in with the report on the figure. That's just my opinion though and I am just a play tester.

Tiranx got it about right. We don't have any map requirements, but BoV maps are the easiest, as we know exactly what you're talking about and that the map is balanced. If not BoV, providing a link or a picture is helpful, but again not required.

Really, you can play on any map you want, we just encourage people to use BoV and the like.

[awesomeunleashed]

Originally Posted by Tiranx

My feeling on this is that BoV is preferred because they ask for the map that you played on and a BoV map is the easiest map for them to picture/understand. However, if I play on a map we just throw together, I will take a picture and send it in with the report on the figure. That's just my opinion though and I am just a play tester.

As long as it's a decently tourney-worthy map, it should be fine. There are plenty of maps out there that aren't in the BoV but are almost or just as good as maps that are in the BoV.

For example, I've sometimes used various Typhon2222 maps for playtesting...

Edit: Ninja'd...

[Viegon]

Yeah, it's perfectly fine to use non-BoV maps made my respectable community map makers, I've done plenty of playtesting on Dignan maps.

[Arch-vile]

Oh, wow, I thought it was a requirement to use BoV maps. I'll have to try a Dignan or Typhon map next time.

[White Knight]

Originally Posted by infectedsloth

Jexik's Cookie Cutter Army Discussion is a great tool that I used to use if your not sure what to play against, tier 2 and 3 armies all make for good match ups, although it's not up to date with all the D&D armies and some existing armies probably need to be moved into different tiers it's still a great resource.

1) With all the new D&D and C3V, it would probably be good for someone to put together a list of armies for the different Tiers. (I don't have any tournament experience or I would do it.) A list like Jexik's list with the new armies would be great.

In fact, it would be good to have a list of suggested playtest armies, under different categories: Good versus melee, good versus range, good versus squads, etc... Obviously they can't cover all possibilities, but having suggestions would really help.

2) Viegon said that an unit should lose versus armies such as 4th Mass and Q9.

I have a question:
Would a unit be considered broken if an army built around it can beat the 4th Mass fairly consistently but loses to Q9 builds and many of the Tier 2 armies (or even Tier 3) on a consistent basis?

Or would it's weaknesses make up for its strength against the 4th and similar builds?

[awesomeunleashed]

Originally Posted by White Knight

I have a question:
Would a unit be considered broken if an army built around it can beat the 4th Mass fairly consistently but loses to Q9 builds and many of the Tier 2 armies (or even Tier 3) on a consistent basis?

Or would it's weaknesses make up for its strength against the 4th and similar builds?

I personally would say that an army that is "broken" because of power (not broken because of some corner case or something) would be one that beats the Tier 1 armies and the majority of the Tier 2 armies most of the time. You can't generalize too much just based on 4th or Q9, because a unit might have a particular strength against one or both of them.

Really, it depends a whole lot on the unit.

[caps]

Now I'm wondering... Viegon, roughly how many games does a unit go through, all told, before it moves through the process? I know there is some variance, so what are the low and high numbers?

[infectedsloth]

Originally Posted by White Knight

1) With all the new D&D and C3V, it would probably be good for someone to put together a list of armies for the different Tiers. (I don't have any tournament experience or I would do it.) A list like Jexik's list with the new armies would be great.

I agree. I know I'm not even close to as qualified as Jexik, but if I have the time, I'll try to throw something together that would be geared towards c3v playtesters, that included C3V and D&D.

Originally Posted by White Knight

In fact, it would be good to have a list of suggested playtest armies, under different categories: Good versus melee, good versus range, good versus squads, etc... Obviously they can't cover all possibilities, but having suggestions would really help.

At first glance this seemed to me like a good idea, but after more thought, I fear it would lead to a collective lack of variety in opposition armies.

Originally Posted by White Knight

2) Viegon said that an unit should lose versus armies such as 4th Mass and Q9.

I have a question:
Would a unit be considered broken if an army built around it can beat the 4th Mass fairly consistently but loses to Q9 builds and many of the Tier 2 armies (or even Tier 3) on a consistent basis?

Or would it's weaknesses make up for its strength against the 4th and similar builds?

I would say that figure isn't broken. In my experience playtesting, I've beaten some very good armies that would be considered tier one, or on the strong side of tier 2. If a figure has the tools not only to beat a single tier one army, but I variety of elite armies, then I would start contemplating if the figure was broken.

[faure]

1) With all the new D&D and C3V, it would probably be good for someone to put together a list of armies for the different Tiers. (I don't have any tournament experience or I would do it.) A list like Jexik's list with the new armies would be great.

If you browse through the tournament reports in the Battle Reports thread or the reports from the Online Heroscape League in the Events thread, you can find lots of good and varied army examples to draw from at different point levels.

I would say that figure isn't broken. In my experience playtesting, I've beaten some very good armies that would be considered tier one, or on the strong side of tier 2. If a figure has the tools not only to beat a single tier one army, but I variety of elite armies, then I would start contemplating if the figure was broken.

One of the things I've found with the C3V designs is the focus on new and varied strategies. Some can substantially change the play of the groups they bond with, others require substantially new strategies to oppose. That's where the fun is!