Pinned HE General and News - Discussion

  • Honestly I think the new magic phase is a big improvement from the 1.1-1.3 equivalents.

    I'm as gutted as everyone else about the expected nerfs, but I think pointing at the magic phase as the(a) issue is a distraction.

    @Calcathin, I've been less active for a while and just caught up. Above all I am sorry we lost you from the HBE team, your contribution was instrumental and the team and community will miss you. I raise my spear and shield to you.
  • This is to the people that are in charge of communication to the community. Pls be so kind to take your time to read my post and answer my questions.

    Hi everybody,

    I am following this thread for quite a while now reading the different posts regarding the nerf incoming as a "hotfix".

    I have some serious questions about this entire procedure and would be really happy, if someone with some insight might respond to my questions.

    But before asking, I will try to explain what are the main reasons for my lack of understanding for the upcoming nerf.

    So let's start:

    After reading that a huge nerf is incoming, because there are "some gamebreaking tools for HBE", I was wondering, where this "state of knowledge" came from. I was especially confused, because of the following points:

    1.) I always thought, the period of time till May was planned as a beta version, that should be used, to see, if there are items/units/etc. that need a redesign or an adjustment. So, if I am right, the beta is less than 2 months up and running. There were few tournaments to gather data from (as they are a more competetive sources of play).

    My first question is though: Why are we fixing things after not even 2 months of testing in the middle of a beta, that should be a time for testing?

    So, I said to my self: One might answer, that there are obviously "gamebreaking things" that dont require further testing to know there is a huge issue.

    But than I was wondering again:

    2.) If there were these "gamebreaking things" wouldnt you expect to find them in most of the competetive lists? Or wouldnt you see tournament results, that are highly above everage?

    And so, I started checking tournament lists and results. I gathered all lists (that were available to me) and checked them for which units where used, which charakters, which banners etc.

    And guess what: There was a huge variety. Yes, some choices where more often to find than others, but "gamebreaking"? No, I couldnt find these highly urgent issues...

    So what next? I began to check results (if there were some available for everybody). Wanna guess again?

    Right! No huge statistical outliers.

    3.) Wouldnt you expect either that HBE are a) using all the same overpowered items in their builds b) be highly overperforming in results or c) be highly overrepresented in tournaments (what they arent btw)?

    So, if you dont belive me, I will provide my list of checked tournaments as an excel sheet in the upcoming days. But belive me, it isnt that difficult to find this information by yourself, you only have to check the T9A forums.

    So, if competetive play isnt the main issue - as it cant be by taking into consideration the data of the last bigger tournaments - I was thinking about more casual gameplay.

    The next step was, to check more lists of a higher variety of players. So I checked the "Show us your 2.0 lists" thread, that can be found subsequent in this forum.

    Of course, there is no way for me to get information about results, but that wasnt the point for me. What I did was checking every list shown in this thread to see, if there are some issues.

    And yes, there were some significant results: In ~80 lists I found a high usage of MoCT Commander, HWotF Prince using SotBD, a significant use of either SM with WBoR or LG with NB. Also a lot of lists used Citizen Spears with WBoR or Citizen Archers with BoB.

    But there were also a lot of other builds used AND (and these are the most relevant points for me) a) a much wider usage of units compared to 1.3 b) much less avoidance orientated lists c) much more versatility in total.

    I will provide my gathered data, if one wont belive me also as an excel sheet.

    So:

    4.) If competetive play isnt the point, why do you force players back to maybe 2 or 3 lists by nerfing a book, that obviously provides a huge variety of stiles (but that has of course some elements working out better than others)?

    I cant see the point. I really cant.

    HBE players are happy with their book, competetive play isnt the real issue. It provides more variety than ever before, there is much less msu, there is more infantery played than before, there are a lot of the units used that are in the book, it seems not to be performing highly over the top (there are points I see - - > pls check my opinion below!).

    Why do you guys really force the issue if there is none (or better: if there is some, but it isnt a dramatically deal)?

    I played myself 10 games in the last weeks (all with different HBE lists). I had 4 wins, 5 losses, 1 draw. I cant say things are extremly "gamebreaking". Not at all.

    I think, there are some things, to be considered in the future (like a adjustment in casting value for our hereditary spell e.g or the WBoR limitation for Special/Core).

    But that is no new recognition. We had a poll for this, where mostly HBE players confirmed: ok lets put the value up to 9+/10+ or lets make a limitation for WBoR.

    I ask myself: Why the f*** am I investing time in testing, providing feedback, investing my time in making this game better, if the result is an obviously dramatic nerf incoming to a point of time, where it isnt needed in that way not considering anybodys feedback?

    I really really really would appreciate some answers. I dont want to be mean or blackmail somebody but maybe you can see my following point: Why should I play tts, when the energy i am investing in it is useless time to making it better. For real guys: there are alternatives for players like us. Maybe you should take this into account.

    And at last: not every player in ur community is playing ETC or something like this. Have you ever thought about the point, that there are more players not playing International tournaments that just wanna enjoy cool lists, where everything is useful to a certain point?

    Kind regards

    Celegil

    The post was edited 5 times, last by Celegil ().

  • CariadocThorne wrote:

    Emgies wrote:

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    It is literally the job of ACS to come around and explain things to the community.


    If you want to personally yell at the designers, sign up for a job for the project. That's the main perk of doing something to help the project, really. ;)

    ferny wrote:

    @ForsetisMuse @nightwun see last few posts. @Emgies might be a useful recruit :)
    So I am in dubio here. I have possible scenario's here. Maybe @ferny, @WhammeWhamme, @ArchangelusM or @nightwun can help me out.
    1. I wait till the hotfix arrives and I yell and rant at the BLT.
    2. I wait till the hotfix arrives and I sign up furiously and yell and rant at the BLT.
    3. I wait till the hotfix arrives and I am that furious I stop playing.
    4. I sign up, wait till the hotfix and yell and rant at BLT. @WhammeWhamme his preference.
    5. I am cool.
    6. I am cool and I sign up.
    7. Dust my EoS/Dogs of war.
    2. Definitely 2.

    Giladis wrote:

    Aegon wrote:

    @Emgies:

    BLT: Responsible for the point costs

    RT: Responsible for the actual rules

    ADT: Responsible for the design of the army

    Just that you know how to channalise your anger (just kidding :D ).

    What I want to say is: Don't blame the BLT for everything.

    Personally, I will wait for the actual changes and decide after that ;) .
    Also if ever in doubt just blame me.
    So that you know @Giladis, 15th of February 2018.

    angrymob_giladis.jpg
  • Calcathin wrote:

    Adam wrote:

    I doubt that it is about power level but as usual about removal of options and playstyles
    Exactly this.
    HbE will most likely remain a reasonably competitive army (although we’ll take a hit). It is the playstyles and flavour which will suffer and worried me the most.

    For example: I will now no longer entertain the idea of having an army made full of core + characters only for casual play. Many of the enjoyment on building thematic army around it with support of Hbe specific tools is something I will miss. A lot.

    That is what many players outside this forum fail to see from what our ask is: we can have a balanced book without killing some of its key flavour components and playstyles. Instead we’re just called powergrabbersHow
    How want you make full core army playable, if you dont get the power level down ?

    @Celegil Your question is legitime.I hope the team will give you some clear answer the day of the realease of the hotfix.

    If all you say is true, and there is no data that you dont see. Then i think one possible answer could be the quesiton of power level. You have to see that there is not only change into HBE but in all army.
    Then there is question for HBE player, do really this hotfix, will transform the V1.9 list into unplayable or internally unbalanced list ?

    Rendez-vous in 2 month to analyze again the data ;)
    cas-p.net / graphic & web designer.
    SE - VS - O&G - EoS / 9th age player.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Casp ().

  • @Casp I can see your point, that there are nerfs on other armies too and that the powerlevel overall should be considered.

    But dont you think, things are turned around in a wrong way? I mean: wouldnt it be better to make OTHER armies playable and fun in the same way like HBE have become than rather cutting everything down to a point where we all have been before?

    I understand totally why @Calcathin quit, when taking a look at this "idea of balancing things".

    And another aspect I want to point out clearly: I am not interested in having the uber army smashing everybody left and right. I am interested in close and funny games that give me a chill while fearing to lose, laughing when turning around a game that seemed doomed after turn 2 or begging to roll high in the last round of combat in the game to take the win of the entire match.

    I am not interested in repetetively playing the same two valid builds. So that is why I am asking for an explanation of this whole shenanigans...
  • @Celegil thank you for leaving your questions

    I feel the best time to answer these is when the hotfix drops. Then, we can discuss some of the stated rationale that went into these decisions. There are also other factors that went into these decisions that are better brought up at a future time.

    I can say that the tournament data is not the only feedback used. And the community feedback was delivered.

    There’s a reason I wanted more accountability and communication for project internals, primarily BLT.

    The hotfix will probably be frustrating. I will say, I am still able to build an infantry based list with strong magic (120 infantry models woot woot!). There’s definitely less freedom in building such a list, but I’m excited to play my best friend in an bloody dirty infantry battle ^^

    If this game frustrates you and can’t deliver what you love, then my advice to to take a break. Move on if needed. But there are no “evil” people on this team. And there’s people who internally I think share your viewpoints. The HBE ACS definitely does agree with many of them ^^

    If you choose to stay, then you are not alone in your energy and desire for change. And if it’s not a hassle, those docs would be a good resource ^^

    Edit: you are correct that the 2 month period was for “game breaking things”, presumably done quickly to maximize tournament data. But for reasons I don’t really understand the scope was widened (reason I heard was “ACS asked for a lot of stuff to change”)

    The post was edited 1 time, last by PapaG ().

  • Celegil wrote:

    This is to the people that are in charge of communication to the community. Pls be so kind to take your time to read my post and answer my questions.

    Hi everybody,

    I am following this thread for quite a while now reading the different posts regarding the nerf incoming as a "hotfix".

    I have some serious questions about this entire procedure and would be really happy, if someone with some insight might respond to my questions.

    But before asking, I will try to explain what are the main reasons for my lack of understanding for the upcoming nerf.

    So let's start:

    After reading that a huge nerf is incoming, because there are "some gamebreaking tools for HBE", I was wondering, where this "state of knowledge" came from. I was especially confused, because of the following points:

    1.) I always thought, the period of time till May was planned as a beta version, that should be used, to see, if there are items/units/etc. that need a redesign or an adjustment. So, if I am right, the beta is less than 2 months up and running. There were few tournaments to gather data from (as they are a more competetive sources of play).

    My first question is though: Why are we fixing things after not even 2 months of testing in the middle of a beta, that should be a time for testing?

    So, I said to my self: One might answer, that there are obviously "gamebreaking things" that dont require further testing to know there is a huge issue.

    But than I was wondering again:

    2.) If there were these "gamebreaking things" wouldnt you expect to find them in most of the competetive lists? Or wouldnt you see tournament results, that are highly above everage?

    And so, I started checking tournament lists and results. I gathered all lists (that were available to me) and checked them for which units where used, which charakters, which banners etc.

    And guess what: There was a huge variety. Yes, some choices where more often to find than others, but "gamebreaking"? No, I couldnt find these highly urgent issues...

    So what next? I began to check results (if there were some available for everybody). Wanna guess again?

    Right! No huge statistical outliers.

    3.) Wouldnt you expect either that HBE are a) using all the same overpowered items in their builds b) be highly overperforming in results or c) be highly overrepresented in tournaments (what they arent btw)?

    So, if you dont belive me, I will provide my list of checked tournaments as an excel sheet in the upcoming days. But belive me, it isnt that difficult to find this information by yourself, you only have to check the T9A forums.

    So, if competetive play isnt the main issue - as it cant be by taking into consideration the data of the last bigger tournaments - I was thinking about more casual gameplay.

    The next step was, to check more lists of a higher variety of players. So I checked the "Show us your 2.0 lists" thread, that can be found subsequent in this forum.

    Of course, there is no way for me to get information about results, but that wasnt the point for me. What I did was checking every list shown in this thread to see, if there are some issues.

    And yes, there were some significant results: In ~80 lists I found a high usage of MoCT Commander, HWotF Prince using SotBD, a significant use of either SM with WBoR or LG with NB. Also a lot of lists used Citizen Spears with WBoR or Citizen Archers with BoB.

    But there were also a lot of other builds used AND (and these are the most relevant points for me) a) a much wider usage of units compared to 1.3 b) much less avoidance orientated lists c) much more versatility in total.

    I will provide my gathered data, if one wont belive me also as an excel sheet.

    So:

    4.) If competetive play isnt the point, why do you force players back to maybe 2 or 3 lists by nerfing a book, that obviously provides a huge variety of stiles (but that has of course some elements working out better than others)?

    I cant see the point. I really cant.

    HBE players are happy with their book, competetive play isnt the real issue. It provides more variety than ever before, there is much less msu, there is more infantery played than before, there are a lot of the units used that are in the book, it seems not to be performing highly over the top (there are points I see - - > pls check my opinion below!).

    Why do you guys really force the issue if there is none (or better: if there is some, but it isnt a dramatically deal)?

    I played myself 10 games in the last weeks (all with different HBE lists). I had 4 wins, 5 losses, 1 draw. I cant say things are extremly "gamebreaking". Not at all.

    I think, there are some things, to be considered in the future (like a adjustment in casting value for our hereditary spell e.g or the WBoR limitation for Special/Core).

    But that is no new recognition. We had a poll for this, where mostly HBE players confirmed: ok lets put the value up to 9+/10+ or lets make a limitation for WBoR.

    I ask myself: Why the f*** am I investing time in testing, providing feedback, investing my time in making this game better, if the result is an obviously dramatic nerf incoming to a point of time, where it isnt needed in that way not considering anybodys feedback?

    I really really really would appreciate some answers. I dont want to be mean or blackmail somebody but maybe you can see my following point: Why should I play tts, when the energy i am investing in it is useless time to making it better. For real guys: there are alternatives for players like us. Maybe you should take this into account.

    And at last: not every player in ur community is playing ETC or something like this. Have you ever thought about the point, that there are more players not playing International tournaments that just wanna enjoy cool lists, where everything is useful to a certain point?

    Kind regards

    Celegil
    If data collation of the type you describe might be useful to one of the teams, might you be interested in signing up? I'll tag the relevant people if you might be :)
    Join us on Ulthuan.net
  • @PapaG Thank you for your answer.

    First for your Information: I am playing and supporting T9A from the first day it came up despite the fact I am not that kind of guy writing a lot in the forum myself. I am more active in german forums due to the lack of my english.

    I dont blame anybody being "evil". And I think my questions are presented quite rational and kind.

    I really am NOT interested in moving on to other systems. But I get more and more a feeling of not "being listened to". And that doesnt mean "not being listened to" personally. It refers to the feeling that wishes of the communty are not being listened to by the people making the decisions.

    Dont get me wrong! You guys did an amazing job creating the actual army book but it seems like there is no one listening to all the HBE players yelling: yes, there are things to be considered, but we love the book as it is entirely! Please keep the variety, pls keep the funny stiles we are able to play.

    And that is, what my problem is. As said in my post before: I am not interested in moving backwards just for no reason (or lets say for no reason that is evident for the "outsider").
  • Celegil wrote:

    But dont you think, things are turned around in a wrong way? I mean: wouldnt it be better to make OTHER armies playable and fun in the same way like HBE have become than rather cutting everything down to a point where we all have been before?
    [...]
    I already wrote some long post here and/or in the hotfix topic to justify my point of view... But dont remember wich post number sorry.. too many answer ! Look somehting like 100 post before if you want more detail ^^...
    To resume: No. Nerf is the good answer. The more the powerlevel will be low, the more fun there will be for everybody. Its a general answer, i dont know if this theory apply for the specific Hbe hotfix case, i am not Hbe player neither a data or balance team member, but it might be possible.

    And aspect I want to point out clearly: I am not interested in having the uber army smashing everybody left and right. I am interested in close and funny games that give me a chill while fearing to lose, laughing when turning around a game that seemed doomed after turn 2 or begging to roll high in the last round of combat in the game to take the win of the entire match.
    [...]
    Well i think we all want this, and specially all team member involved into this project. Maybe this hot fix is a mistake but maybe not. Lets wait and see.


    I am not interested in repetetively playing the same two valid builds. So that is why I am asking for an explanation of this whole shenanigans...
    Then just play some other build. You will not win turnament, but i think T9A is balanced enough to take pleasure even with exotical build. If like me you like difficulty, it should not be an issue.

    To get more detail about my opinion on build i already answer many times in this topic or in an other. And the last time it was post #514 #516 just here ^^..https://www.the-ninth-age.com/index.php?thread/34610-future-of-t9a-hotfixes/&postID=906289#post906289

    cas-p.net / graphic & web designer.
    SE - VS - O&G - EoS / 9th age player.
  • Celegil wrote:

    @PapaG Thank you for your answer.

    First for your Information: I am playing and supporting T9A from the first day it came up despite the fact I am not that kind of guy writing a lot in the forum myself. I am more active in german forums due to the lack of my english.

    I dont blame anybody being "evil". And I think my questions are presented quite rational and kind.

    I really am NOT interested in moving on to other systems. But I get more and more a feeling of not "being listened to". And that doesnt mean "not being listened to" personally. It refers to the feeling that wishes of the communty are not being listened to by the people making the decisions.

    Dont get me wrong! You guys did an amazing job creating the actual army book but it seems like there is no one listening to all the HBE players yelling: yes, there are things to be considered, but we love the book as it is entirely! Please keep the variety, pls keep the funny stiles we are able to play.

    And that is, what my problem is. As said in my post before: I am not interested in moving backwards just for no reason (or lets say for no reason that is evident for the "outsider").

    The “no evil people” was primarily a statement for the community in the coming days. Sorry if that felt directed at you, it definitely looks like it is at second glance. Your post is very rational and calm

    Your ACS is listening to the desires of the community ^^ and the data is seen/passed on. And we definitely want internal transparency and to get those reasons out there.

    Like I said, coming days. Thank you for being with this project for so long, I hope these coming days/months result in you feeling heard ^^
  • @Casp Thank you for your answer. I appreciate also your opinion and I will check the threads for your posts to get a deeper understanding of your position.

    I totally respect that not everybody shares my point of view. My problem is, as written and stated extensive above, that the decisions made resulting in a nerf are not transparent or coherent for me.

    Thats the reason for my questions. I hope you can understand my point and my position as a community member.
  • Giladis wrote:

    Emgies wrote:

    So that you know @Giladis, 15th of February 2018.
    angrymob_giladis.jpg
    I'll meet you at field :D

    HbE: You might want to let bygones be bygones and get some DE help, so we can Release the Kraken.
    Just because I'm on the Legal Team doesn't mean I know anything about rules or background in development, and if/when I do, I won't be posting about it. All opinions and speculation are my own - treat them as such.

    Legal

    Playtester

    Chariot Command HQ

  • Look at the lack of foul language not found missing from my post eh?

    *Pours horn*
    Why not hold elections for key seats? Sounds like fun, accountability, having to care and transparancy at once!

    Hermund Vigerust Endressòn Furu - Savage Sage of the Norse
    Faux-pro player and ETC vagabond.
    Enjoys the company of deluded nerds and women of unquestionably low morale.

    For questions of tactics, The Savage Arts of Playtrolling
  • Squirrelloid wrote:

    Giladis wrote:

    Emgies wrote:

    So that you know @Giladis, 15th of February 2018.
    angrymob_giladis.jpg
    I'll meet you at field :D
    HbE: You might want to let bygones be bygones and get some DE help, so we can Release the Kraken.
    I would propose another strategy and have Giladis just take ownership of that pic do a little hbe photoshop magic to produce a spear in hand and nike air ranger boots leading the charge :)
  • @PapaG Thank you for your reply. I really appreciate, that you will provide more information in the following days.

    Maybe some words to explain why I am posting my questions:

    I dont have a general problem with fixing urgent issues (like the hereditary spell is one in my opinion) if needed to provide everybody (which means the HBE player as much as his opponent) a good feeling when playing a T9A match.

    I also think, that it is absolutely neccessary to ask oneself: Is Item/enchant/etc X maybe to strong. And if it is, than it should be fixed of course!

    But here is the thing: As a community member, I desperately want to know WHY some things are getting fixed. I want to understand the process that lead to a nerf.

    Even if I have an other opinion personally, I will be able to say to myself: Ok, I cant share the point of the person responsible whilst I have a different opinion. But I can see the decision making was not "because someone ran riot". Or based on "facts" I dont have an insight in.

    A lack of communication in things like "hotfixes" leads to the feeling of "ok, someone thought there are people crying X is OP, we have to nerf things to keep the crowd calm".

    I wouldnt have a problem with it if the following szenario would have happened: There is a news upcoming or maybe a bts that says: Hey guys, after gathering data for 3 month, we got the following results: A, B, C, D. After checking tournament results and comprehensive internal playtesting we voted for the following adjustments. We made these adjustments also in concideration of your feedback from the following sources: A, B, C.

    That is, what helps create understanding decisions and what leads to not having people go riot.

    Edit: No, the lists I made for myself arent a hassel. They might not be ultimatively precise but they are fair enough tools to see

    a) Which units have been chosen by players in the forum (I differentiated by "unit/charakter per list - - > e.g there are 20 out of 77 lists using a hwotf with sotbd; they also differentiated by "total units per lists" - - > e.g in 77 lists there have been used 45 units of citizen spears whilst 32 of them had a wbor, 6 a bob, 10 no (elven) banner).

    b) the same for tournament based lists from larger tournaments (like british masters, cracow in poland, italy etc.)

    c) a rudimemtary "time line" showing the progress of chosing "problematic" characters in comparison to others (worked like this: in week 1+2 there had been 15 lists chosen 6 times character builds with queens cav, 5 times ootfh on dragon etc. In week 3/4 there were x lists chosing xyz).

    c) comparison with all builds I ever played in 1.3 (I have a folder with every list I ever played as a battle scribe roster with date and title).

    d) comparison with every HBE list ever played in 1.3 in my tt club (as far as reported) considering 4 players with HBE armys (with nearly 60 list examples in total).

    I did this, because I belive in data, not in "personal feelings". I also know, that - if one loves something like I do love my HBE - you get a "blurred view" on things. That is why I wanted to get a better and more clear view before complayning in this forum and make myself a fact based decision on the upcoming "hotfix".

    The post was edited 4 times, last by Celegil ().

  • New

    ferny wrote:

    Celegil wrote:

    This is to the people that are in charge of communication to the community. Pls be so kind to take your time to read my post and answer my questions.

    Hi everybody,

    I am following this thread for quite a while now reading the different posts regarding the nerf incoming as a "hotfix".

    I have some serious questions about this entire procedure and would be really happy, if someone with some insight might respond to my questions.

    But before asking, I will try to explain what are the main reasons for my lack of understanding for the upcoming nerf.

    So let's start:

    After reading that a huge nerf is incoming, because there are "some gamebreaking tools for HBE", I was wondering, where this "state of knowledge" came from. I was especially confused, because of the following points:

    1.) I always thought, the period of time till May was planned as a beta version, that should be used, to see, if there are items/units/etc. that need a redesign or an adjustment. So, if I am right, the beta is less than 2 months up and running. There were few tournaments to gather data from (as they are a more competetive sources of play).

    My first question is though: Why are we fixing things after not even 2 months of testing in the middle of a beta, that should be a time for testing?

    So, I said to my self: One might answer, that there are obviously "gamebreaking things" that dont require further testing to know there is a huge issue.

    But than I was wondering again:

    2.) If there were these "gamebreaking things" wouldnt you expect to find them in most of the competetive lists? Or wouldnt you see tournament results, that are highly above everage?

    And so, I started checking tournament lists and results. I gathered all lists (that were available to me) and checked them for which units where used, which charakters, which banners etc.

    And guess what: There was a huge variety. Yes, some choices where more often to find than others, but "gamebreaking"? No, I couldnt find these highly urgent issues...

    So what next? I began to check results (if there were some available for everybody). Wanna guess again?

    Right! No huge statistical outliers.

    3.) Wouldnt you expect either that HBE are a) using all the same overpowered items in their builds b) be highly overperforming in results or c) be highly overrepresented in tournaments (what they arent btw)?

    So, if you dont belive me, I will provide my list of checked tournaments as an excel sheet in the upcoming days. But belive me, it isnt that difficult to find this information by yourself, you only have to check the T9A forums.

    So, if competetive play isnt the main issue - as it cant be by taking into consideration the data of the last bigger tournaments - I was thinking about more casual gameplay.

    The next step was, to check more lists of a higher variety of players. So I checked the "Show us your 2.0 lists" thread, that can be found subsequent in this forum.

    Of course, there is no way for me to get information about results, but that wasnt the point for me. What I did was checking every list shown in this thread to see, if there are some issues.

    And yes, there were some significant results: In ~80 lists I found a high usage of MoCT Commander, HWotF Prince using SotBD, a significant use of either SM with WBoR or LG with NB. Also a lot of lists used Citizen Spears with WBoR or Citizen Archers with BoB.

    But there were also a lot of other builds used AND (and these are the most relevant points for me) a) a much wider usage of units compared to 1.3 b) much less avoidance orientated lists c) much more versatility in total.

    I will provide my gathered data, if one wont belive me also as an excel sheet.

    So:

    4.) If competetive play isnt the point, why do you force players back to maybe 2 or 3 lists by nerfing a book, that obviously provides a huge variety of stiles (but that has of course some elements working out better than others)?

    I cant see the point. I really cant.

    HBE players are happy with their book, competetive play isnt the real issue. It provides more variety than ever before, there is much less msu, there is more infantery played than before, there are a lot of the units used that are in the book, it seems not to be performing highly over the top (there are points I see - - > pls check my opinion below!).

    Why do you guys really force the issue if there is none (or better: if there is some, but it isnt a dramatically deal)?

    I played myself 10 games in the last weeks (all with different HBE lists). I had 4 wins, 5 losses, 1 draw. I cant say things are extremly "gamebreaking". Not at all.

    I think, there are some things, to be considered in the future (like a adjustment in casting value for our hereditary spell e.g or the WBoR limitation for Special/Core).

    But that is no new recognition. We had a poll for this, where mostly HBE players confirmed: ok lets put the value up to 9+/10+ or lets make a limitation for WBoR.

    I ask myself: Why the f*** am I investing time in testing, providing feedback, investing my time in making this game better, if the result is an obviously dramatic nerf incoming to a point of time, where it isnt needed in that way not considering anybodys feedback?

    I really really really would appreciate some answers. I dont want to be mean or blackmail somebody but maybe you can see my following point: Why should I play tts, when the energy i am investing in it is useless time to making it better. For real guys: there are alternatives for players like us. Maybe you should take this into account.

    And at last: not every player in ur community is playing ETC or something like this. Have you ever thought about the point, that there are more players not playing International tournaments that just wanna enjoy cool lists, where everything is useful to a certain point?

    Kind regards

    Celegil
    If data collation of the type you describe might be useful to one of the teams, might you be interested in signing up? I'll tag the relevant people if you might be :)

    I am here. I will send Recruitment Advertisements to at least 2 persons this evening.

    SA-ACS

    Coordinator Translation DE

    United Nations DE

    Playtester

    Info over the work of TouS and where to report your lists.