100% Theoryscape

[dok]

Originally Posted by Sarpedon

Well, then, if I've got to agree with the same definition that everyone else uses, and YOU know what that definition is, then you must simply use that definition (whatever it is) to ascertain which units are competitive and which are not.

Again...

Originally Posted by dok

You're conflating two things here:

1. what the actual word "competitive" means.
2. what figures you think meet that definition.

[Uhurugu]

Originally Posted by Sarpedon

I'm just a lowly poster who obviously (according to some) doesn't have a clue. Right?

Hey, its theoryscape, right? Why are we getting so intense about this? Can we just say that people can:
A: State their opinion
B: State if their opinion differs from another person's

On a slightly philosophical side note:

Spoiler Alert!

If someone has a different opinion from me, I don't care. We're all after the same thing- discovering truth. I believe that my current beliefs about these figures are true; but I would be happy to hear everyone else's, because I could be wrong. Conversely, I'll try to convince everyone else of my beliefs; because they are the best I have found so far. When I approach a discussion from this perspective, I find that I generally go away thoughtful-- and should I choose to view the conversation as a debate, I come out ahead regardless of whether I 'win' or 'lose.'

Sarpedon, I don't think that anyone here would argue that you are clueless or that your opinion doesn't matter. You've produced some very insightful commentary, and I've found myself enlightened by several of your posts on this thread. I think you're getting too worked up about this- it's only a game; it's only some random guy's opinion on the internet . If you feel that the other posters are trying to sway your opinion, shouldn't that be a good thing? It means that people are actively searching for truth. None of us (except the playtesters) know how good a unit will be - so we all make predictions and compare notes. It's theoryscape. It's all in good fun.

Back on topic, I think that the Hydra will be interesting to use with the Viking heroes. Eldgrim gives it a much-needed speed boost, Thorgrim helps to preserve its attacks and life, and Finn has found a new best buddy. Hydra at four attacks of five ftw.

[Xn F M]

As long as we're all arguing discussing what a competitive unit is, I think I should throw out my opinion on the subject, as it doesn't appear to be represented yet.

I'd say that a unit is competitive if is in an army that (before an event), I feel like I can get a 75% or better win percentage with. There's some wiggle room for maps and format there, but for the most part the guys that fill that fill are fairly set in stone, and they're generally somewhere in the B to B+ range.

Whether or not the Hydra falls into that range is beyond me. Against melee it'll be nuts, obviously. But against an "average" tournament army, who knows? (Not that we don't know exactly who knows)?


Personally I think there are more interesting discussions to be had with wave 11. Like whether or not the Phantom Knights are the second instance of real power creep in heroscape* or whether they just help balance range vs melee. That's what I'm really curious about right now . . . .

*Isamu being the first.

[SpartanNinja]

Originally Posted by Sarpedon

So, let me ask you, SpartanNinja, do Jexik's power rankings match the definition of competitive? In other words, are the units ranked perfectly? If not, you should get on his case about it. After all, I've only ranked a few units. He's currently in charge of the who shabang. He's the man to tell, not me. I'm just a lowly poster who obviously (according to some) doesn't have a clue. Right?

Do they? I actually don't know. I've never looked at them (no offense to Jexik or anything, but I don't read a lot of his articles). What I do know is this, that figures like the 4th Mass, Q9, Krug, Grut Archers, Stingers, Sir Gilbert etc. have a reputation for being competitive, that they do usually play successfully in our home games, and that Jexik is a playtester (thus warranting him more rep, it's his job to know this). I've never been to a tournament, I rarely play one on one. Are they perfect? I wouldn't expect them to be, nothing is perfect, but I do see very good correlation between the rankings of a figure and the actual gameplay/site rep that figure has. Especially the higher ranked figures, the lower the ranking, the if-ier it gets for me, but that's because I use the lower ranked figures more frequently and I am successful with them as well.

Frankly, I believe that every piece is just as viable a choice to draft as another, I'd take Dund to a tournament if I ever went. Dund, Kaemon Awa, Deadeye Dan, Tagawa Samurai Archers x2, Crixus -- that's about tournament standard (points wise) right? I'm pretty confident that, even if I weren't going to win, I'd give any of the tier 1 armies a run for their money. What the rankings tell me is this, which figures are the most efficient at destroying your opponents army, not necessary which are better. So, if you ask me, a figure's competitive competence is portrayed well in the rankings because they do destroy or cause the destruction of other figures quite well, but the figure's capability* is represented in their points, and I like their capability* more than their competitivity.

And, for the record, I believe you do have a clue, and that you are a good poster. Many times I've agreed with what you've said, sometimes I don't. This past time (with the definitions of words and such) is the only time I've found you to be completely off track, thus the correction.

*(Capable, in this sense, being what the figure is capable of doing throughout the game, whether that be causing damage, striking fear, or healing wounds. Even if the required situation is rare for a certain ability, it is a part of the figures capabilities.)

[Sarpedon]

Originally Posted by SpartanNinja

Do they? I actually don't know. I've never looked at them (no offense to Jexik or anything, but I don't read a lot of his articles). What I do know is this, that figures like the 4th Mass, Q9, Krug, Grut Archers, Stingers, Sir Gilbert etc. have a reputation for being competitive, that they do usually play successfully in our home games, and that Jexik is a playtester (thus warranting him more rep, it's his job to know this). I've never been to a tournament, I rarely play one on one. Are they perfect? I wouldn't expect them to be, nothing is perfect, but I do see very good correlation between the rankings of a figure and the actual gameplay/site rep that figure has. Especially the higher ranked figures, the lower the ranking, the if-ier it gets for me, but that's because I use the lower ranked figures more frequently and I am successful with them as well.

Frankly, I believe that every piece is just as viable a choice to draft as another, I'd take Dund to a tournament if I ever went. Dund, Kaemon Awa, Deadeye Dan, Tagawa Samurai Archers x2, Crixus -- that's about tournament standard (points wise) right? I'm pretty confident that, even if I weren't going to win, I'd give any of the tier 1 armies a run for their money. What the rankings tell me is this, which figures are the most efficient at destroying your opponents army, not necessary which are better. So, if you ask me, a figure's competitive competence is portrayed well in the rankings because they do destroy or cause the destruction of other figures quite well, but the figure's capability* is represented in their points, and I like their capability* more than their competitivity.

And, for the record, I believe you do have a clue, and that you are a good poster. Many times I've agreed with what you've said, sometimes I don't. This past time (with the definitions of words and such) is the only time I've found you to be completely off track, thus the correction.

*(Capable, in this sense, being what the figure is capable of doing throughout the game, whether that be causing damage, striking fear, or healing wounds. Even if the required situation is rare for a certain ability, it is a part of the figures capabilities.)

(Red, bolded, emphais mine)

If you really believe that, then there's your answer. For you, all units are competitive. On the point of the rankings, they do not represent only the degree of lethality of a unit. For example, the only A+ units are Raelin and the Deathreavers, neither known for their offensive accumen. Anyhow, thanks to everyone for participating in the discussion. I hope you've enjoyed it. I'm sorry that I cannot provide you with anything further than what I've already stated. It will have to do, because that's all I've got.

[Sarpedon]

Originally Posted by dok

Again...

See post 752

[dok]

Originally Posted by Sarpedon

See post 752

No, that does not respond to this point at all.

I disagree with SpartanNinja's most recent post, that he thinks essentially everything is competitive. I mostly agree with Jexik's opinions, although there's a few figures we definitely disagree on (search the power ranking thread for our debate about Concan, for instance).

But with you? I don't really disagree with you, per se, because you're not talking about "competitive figures" the same way as everyone else, and you refuse to even consider the common definition for the sake of discussion.

I disagree with SpartanNinja about what figures are competitive, but we can at least agree on what competitive means. SpartanNinja's analogy about "competitive = good at carpentry" is apt. You're not actually disagreeing with me, you're just refusing to make an argument. Agreeing on a definition to consider (or disagreeing on it, but granting it for the sake of argument) is a prerequisite to disagreeing on which figures are competitive.

[dok]

Originally Posted by Xn F M

Personally I think there are more interesting discussions to be had with wave 11. Like whether or not the Phantom Knights are the second instance of real power creep in heroscape* or whether they just help balance range vs melee. That's what I'm really curious about right now . . . .

Definitely the latter. They lose to most competitive melee armies, their edge on the 4th and stingers is pretty small, and they might not have an edge on the 10th at all, depending on the map. They provide some interesting metagame shifts, but they are hardly overpowered.

Originally Posted by Xn F M

*Isamu being the first.

Isamu is not power creep. To me, Isamu almost exists to prove a point - "it doesn't matter how awesome a figure's point efficiency is if it has crappy order marker efficiency". You can't create power creep with a figure that is, at best, a tiebreaker for close matchups.

Heroscape doesn't have power creep. The most powerful figure in the game was released in the first set. When Matt raised the championship trophy this year, nearly half of the points in his army came from RotV.

[scorpiusx]

Am I the only one who thinks that this might be the dumbest argument ever?

I mean deciding what "competitive" means, of course. Just seems like a waste of time when the answer is so obvious.

-scorp

[Kinseth]

I've always argued that Isamu should not be a A class(Perhaps it was A+ I was arguing) anyways, hes good for his points but yes, hes not efficient for order markers.

[clancampbell]

Originally Posted by dok

Definitely the latter. They lose to most competitive melee armies, their edge on the 4th and stingers is pretty small, and they might not have an edge on the 10th at all, depending on the map. They provide some interesting metagame shifts, but they are hardly overpowered.

Isamu is not power creep. To me, Isamu almost exists to prove a point - "it doesn't matter how awesome a figure's point efficiency is if it has crappy order marker efficiency". You can't create power creep with a figure that is, at best, a tiebreaker for close matchups.

Heroscape doesn't have power creep. The most powerful figure in the game was released in the first set. When Matt raised the championship trophy this year, nearly half of the points in his army came from RotV.

Power creep? Isamu? No way. Sure he's annoying at times, but one bas D20 roll and he's toast.
PK's, also no creep. If any units walk that fine line it woud be rats, who are starting to lose their effiency, and maybe this new hydra.

[Takanuva]

Originally Posted by SpartanNinja

Do they? I actually don't know. I've never looked at them (no offense to Jexik or anything, but I don't read a lot of his articles). What I do know is this, that figures like the 4th Mass, Q9, Krug, Grut Archers, Stingers, Sir Gilbert etc. have a reputation for being competitive, that they do usually play successfully in our home games, and that Jexik is a playtester (thus warranting him more rep, it's his job to know this). I've never been to a tournament, I rarely play one on one. Are they perfect? I wouldn't expect them to be, nothing is perfect, but I do see very good correlation between the rankings of a figure and the actual gameplay/site rep that figure has. Especially the higher ranked figures, the lower the ranking, the if-ier it gets for me, but that's because I use the lower ranked figures more frequently and I am successful with them as well.

Frankly, I believe that every piece is just as viable a choice to draft as another, I'd take Dund to a tournament if I ever went. Dund, Kaemon Awa, Deadeye Dan, Tagawa Samurai Archers x2, Crixus -- that's about tournament standard (points wise) right? I'm pretty confident that, even if I weren't going to win, I'd give any of the tier 1 armies a run for their money. What the rankings tell me is this, which figures are the most efficient at destroying your opponents army, not necessary which are better. So, if you ask me, a figure's competitive competence is portrayed well in the rankings because they do destroy or cause the destruction of other figures quite well, but the figure's capability* is represented in their points, and I like their capability* more than their competitivity.

And, for the record, I believe you do have a clue, and that you are a good poster. Many times I've agreed with what you've said, sometimes I don't. This past time (with the definitions of words and such) is the only time I've found you to be completely off track, thus the correction.

*(Capable, in this sense, being what the figure is capable of doing throughout the game, whether that be causing damage, striking fear, or healing wounds. Even if the required situation is rare for a certain ability, it is a part of the figures capabilities.)

Well, not that I've ever been to a major tournament before, but I'm pretty sure that if this even came up in my casual gaming it wouldn't be much of a challenge for those winnng obsessed freaks.(AKA, my friend who comes to casual games with 4 squads of 4th Mass.) But thats just my thoughts, and if your good at it, then ignore my comment entirely. After all, its just theory