Pinned HE General and News - Discussion

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

  • New

    @berti you made a fair analysis, I fighted it on the board and the solution is avoiding.
    But please stop writing things like 'elves turn fhe table' because in the real game this is most far from the truth with almost every unit from other armies.
    I don't want to mention wat rats do with cc units.
    I find quite reasonable that elven people should start in advantage when fighting most of other units, beeing for most of the times in numeric disantvantage. We field al lot of small medium units
    Just please stop come here and write that we touch and destroy things because this brought to a probably horrible hotfix that satisfies no one
    "Le donne, i cavallier, l'arme, gli amori,
    le cortesie, l'audaci imprese io canto"

    Ludovico Ariosto
  • New

    Isn’t the discussion about HBE 2.0 being overpower is rather similar to the evergoing discussion about fake news.


    Person X: Has an opinion about a certain subject, he thinks that: Spears are better than an axes. It’s just his opinion, he don’t really have that much empirical or statistical fact that spears are actually better then axes. But he really feels that they are.


    Person X: Tells this opinion to all his friends, his friends don’t really have an strong opinion in that matter but his opinion does makes sense. Spears are longer then axes and a bit pointier so, fair enough. Spears are perhaps slightly better than axes. It’s so much harder to prove opinions wrong with facts than to express an opinion. So instead of trying to convince person X about his opinion and debunking his claim from the start. We now have a bunch of people thinking mildly that spears are better than axes. So from persons X personal claim there now is an open opinion that perhaps, spears are better than axes?


    The manufacturer of spears and axes eventually hears this opinion. Some people are claiming that spears are better than axes and axe-people think this is unfair. The development department at the manufacturers office starts an internal discussion about the subject and starts to think that they perhaps did falter in their initial design about the weapons. They don’t want unsatisfied customers so they tells the manufacturer to dulls the tip a bit and shorten the shaft a bit. Satisfied customers don’t express an loud opinion, so there isn’t a strong counter voiced argument regarding the subject.


    Now the people that prefers spears over axes gets angry, and this whole pop throwing contest that we are in at the moment starts.

    If HBE now are overpowered pre the hotfix shouldn’t there be rather large quantity of actual facts that points in that they are overpower? Shouldn’t there HBE domination in the tournament scene? I’ve followed this thread since it started, and haven’t seen an post that show’s this. (I’m still human and can ofc have missed it :) )
  • New

    Kopistar wrote:

    Dear friend, you ask about casting probability wihtout asking about dice number.

    Casting reliable on 2 dice ain't the same as casting reliable on 3 or 4 dice.
    I don't ask about dice number yet precisely because I wish to estimate how many dice I need to throw to obtain this "reliable" success.
    I already said long ago that not everybody is taking a Wizard Master + Book + ... + ... +. Or is there only one available build left to us ?
    My most regular opponent plays lots of ambushing Beast Herds (real plague for us). What if I prefer to protect my wizard ? Do I really have to 4/5-dice every attempt because I didn't buy him/her all possible casting bonuses ? Seems weird, at least...
    Is our H-spell even worth 4 or 5 dice ? What if I fail ? My opponent has so many dice left he can dispel everything I have in store. Why should I invest so many points from the beginning ?
    :HE: This morning, they looked for some HBE army for a T9A fun game. There just was no fun for HBE anymore.
    My elves are back on their shelves for long. Now waiting until May, or another interesting game...
  • New

    Teowulff wrote:

    berti wrote:

    I don´t think beta testing a power creep makes any sense. (and in my opinion the sum of the things added were power creep, and claiming that all other armies should do the same....) A lot of these things (also in other books) should have been delayed until the new base rules and magic is stable. What do you test for, when in the patch suddenly some basic rules change.
    You say "Power Creep" .. yet there still is no evidence from small or bigger tournaments that the banners or whatever other HbE update has made them more competitive. As a matter of fact they haven't won a single significant tournament.Why insist on acting like it's a given fact - when it's not?
    100 % of 2.0 tournaments I attended were won by HBE.
    1. tabletopturniere.de/t3_tournament_results.php?tid=20421
    2. Okay, I only attended one, and I have no idea whether it was a significant tournament or not. :D But still, it's data.
    I didn't play against the HBE army so I don't have a list. Maybe someone else here does?
  • New

    AEnoriel wrote:

    Concerning our Hereditary (or any other spell by the way), what percentage of chance to succeed do you consider a RELIABLE cast ?
    1 - 50% to 60%
    2 - 60% to 70 %
    3 - 70% to 80%
    4 - 80% and over.

    Two reasons for this question:
    A - I would like to estimate how much I need to pay for magic (Mage/MoCT, Master level, Book of Meladys, Spellcrafting...) and expected return on investment.
    B - I'm afraid it may show our choices were drastically reduced by the oncoming changes. Just some input for calculations.
    It may differ per person but I'd only rate 80%+ as "reliably".
    For heriditary 8+ that means:

    1 dice2 dice3 dice4 dice
    no bonus*
    -41.7%83.8%97.3%
    +1 bonus
    -58.3%90.7%98.8%
    +2 bonus
    16.7%72.2%95.4%99.6%
    +3 bonus
    33.3%83.3%98.1%99.9%



    * using wizard's hat with hereditay spell book.
    Playing/painting: HbE, SA & DE ..
  • New

    Arrahed wrote:

    Teowulff wrote:

    berti wrote:

    I don´t think beta testing a power creep makes any sense. (and in my opinion the sum of the things added were power creep, and claiming that all other armies should do the same....) A lot of these things (also in other books) should have been delayed until the new base rules and magic is stable. What do you test for, when in the patch suddenly some basic rules change.
    You say "Power Creep" .. yet there still is no evidence from small or bigger tournaments that the banners or whatever other HbE update has made them more competitive. As a matter of fact they haven't won a single significant tournament.Why insist on acting like it's a given fact - when it's not?
    100 % of 2.0 tournaments I attended were won by HBE.
    1. tabletopturniere.de/t3_tournament_results.php?tid=20421
    2. Okay, I only attended one, and I have no idea whether it was a significant tournament or not. :D But still, it's data.
    I didn't play against the HBE army so I don't have a list. Maybe someone else here does?
    These kind of posts doesnt help at all. To date, noone has any proof shown or explained in any way that supports the claim "HBE in 2.0 are OP!".

    Noone. Not a single flaged person, not a single individuel, not a single tournament data.

    Yet the hard nerfs are incoming and people still wont change their mind.

    So what does this really proofs?

    I really wish someone from the T9A team would come here and answer this simple question:
    Where is the proof?

    And i can try to "foresee" the future: if the hotfix arrives with no explaination....well, how do i phrase it in a polite way? Maybe....no, i just cant. Better stay hidden where you are, and hope PapaG and Masamune will take the beating thats meant for you. And be happy and proud that you are just "better" than all the rest of the subhumans here in the HBE community. I mean, if i have the power to do what i like, and dont have to take any consequences....who cares what the peasants are saying or screaming.


    L’État, c’est moi!
  • New

    Arrahed wrote:

    100 % of 2.0 tournaments I attended were won by HBE.
    1. tabletopturniere.de/t3_tournament_results.php?tid=20421
    2. Okay, I only attended one, and I have no idea whether it was a significant tournament or not. :D But still, it's data.
    I didn't play against the HBE army so I don't have a list. Maybe someone else here does?
    So, but that is exactly what is needed in my opinion to make a rational decision! Maybe it is only one tournament, but it is data. And I am glad to see, that it was won by HBE :) Btw, the winner is a really experienced player known in the german HBE scene ;) Of course it is not a huge database, but each base is starting with the first result. So I think it is necessary to check each tournament available!


    nengstrm wrote:

    Isn’t the discussion about HBE 2.0 being overpower is rather similar to the evergoing discussion about fake news.


    Person X: Has an opinion about a certain subject, he thinks that: Spears are better than an axes. It’s just his opinion, he don’t really have that much empirical or statistical fact that spears are actually better then axes. But he really feels that they are.


    Person X: Tells this opinion to all his friends, his friends don’t really have an strong opinion in that matter but his opinion does makes sense. Spears are longer then axes and a bit pointier so, fair enough. Spears are perhaps slightly better than axes. It’s so much harder to prove opinions wrong with facts than to express an opinion. So instead of trying to convince person X about his opinion and debunking his claim from the start. We now have a bunch of people thinking mildly that spears are better than axes. So from persons X personal claim there now is an open opinion that perhaps, spears are better than axes?


    The manufacturer of spears and axes eventually hears this opinion. Some people are claiming that spears are better than axes and axe-people think this is unfair. The development department at the manufacturers office starts an internal discussion about the subject and starts to think that they perhaps did falter in their initial design about the weapons. They don’t want unsatisfied customers so they tells the manufacturer to dulls the tip a bit and shorten the shaft a bit. Satisfied customers don’t express an loud opinion, so there isn’t a strong counter voiced argument regarding the subject.


    Now the people that prefers spears over axes gets angry, and this whole pop throwing contest that we are in at the moment starts.

    If HBE now are overpowered pre the hotfix shouldn’t there be rather large quantity of actual facts that points in that they are overpower? Shouldn’t there HBE domination in the tournament scene? I’ve followed this thread since it started, and haven’t seen an post that show’s this. (I’m still human and can ofc have missed it :) )
    The point is, that DECISIONMAKING shouldnt be influenced by points like the ones you made. Decisions should be based on hard but boring facts. More than that, there is a rule in scientific research, that I find really applicable for processes like the one happening atm (including discussions like you made up in your post).

    The rule is: You can bring up a proposition but YOU are the one in charge to prove its is correct. And if you can't, then your proposition is wrong and you have to discard it!


    Its not the other way around like it tends to be in different threads like "Are HBE 2.0 being overpowered", where often someone is stating the thesis: "HBE are overpovered" without showing evidence but expeciting the opposing party to prove him wrong.

    Exactly that is why I want data like @Arrahed showed. It is a small missing peace in a larger picture.
  • 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 **Edited by Grimbold Blackhammer - please do not bypass the language filter** 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 :)
    Could someone from HR pick this up please? @ForsetisMuse @Pinktaco @destroyem @Windelov - have a read through @Celegil recent posts...I think @Just_Flo may have already been in touch? Looks like some serious work has gone into collating and interpreting data posted on the forums here, I'm sure there'd be at least one team (ACS, TS, DA) which could make use of the talent and energy here :).
    Join us on Ulthuan.net
  • New

    weltenspringer wrote:

    To date, noone has any proof shown or explained in any way that supports the claim "HBE in 2.0 are OP!".

    Noone. Not a single flaged person, not a single individuel, not a single tournament data.
    Well, @Arrahed just gave you one example so there is actually proof.
    We have also gotten a lot of tournament lists and results right here, check it out for yourself! For example, the latest one added, from Poland, was won by HBE, but a few before that wasn´t.
    The truth is that it is hard to say if HBE as an army is overperforming yet, the meta and beta are still too fresh.
    Are some of the items too good for their price? Probably. Are some of the combinations to good? Almost certainly. Does that directly lead to a tournament dominance? Not necessarily.
    ETC Team Sweden 2016 - Infernal Dwarves
    ETC Team Sweden 2017 - Infernal Dwarves

    UN SW

    Tournament Support

  • New

    Maelstorm wrote:

    weltenspringer wrote:

    To date, noone has any proof shown or explained in any way that supports the claim "HBE in 2.0 are OP!".

    Noone. Not a single flaged person, not a single individuel, not a single tournament data.
    Well, @Arrahed just gave you one example so there is actually proof.We have also gotten a lot of tournament lists and results right here, check it out for yourself! For example, the latest one added, from Poland, was won by HBE, but a few before that wasn´t.
    The truth is that it is hard to say if HBE as an army is overperforming yet, the meta and beta are still too fresh.
    Are some of the items too good for their price? Probably. Are some of the combinations to good? Almost certainly. Does that directly lead to a tournament dominance? Not necessarily.
    So according to this:
    If you base your "proof" that an army is OP just because it won 1 single Tournament, wouldnt that make every other army that won 1 single Tournament OP as well?

    I doubt it.

    As you said: its waaaaaay to early to come to any conclusion that would justify heavy nerfs on an army. Hotfix should exactly be whats it named: a hotfix.

    Not a giant nerf bat that has no solid data backed up the claim.

    So in the end i highly doubt that the decision were made with a clear consciousness or would hold up if it would be brought into court.

    Btw: my last 4 games results: 1 Draw, 2 loses (both against SA), 1 victory (against SA). What does this proof now? HBE UP? OP? Unlucky dices? No autowin? Or maybe, and i tend to this, i didnt played well enough. *shrug*
  • New

    Absolutely not proven OP, no way. I just found it funny that you cried for anyone to show you anything suggesting that HBE won any tournaments, even after someone already showed that in the previous post.

    I would still say wait and see for the hotfixs before yelling about all the assumed nerfs. And for no data, you know that there has been a lot of internal playtesting prior to the launch of the beta and extensive external playtesting after the the launch? If something is changed, there is definitely data to back it up.
    ETC Team Sweden 2016 - Infernal Dwarves
    ETC Team Sweden 2017 - Infernal Dwarves

    UN SW

    Tournament Support

  • New

    Arrahed wrote:

    100 % of 2.0 tournaments I attended were won by HBE.
    1. tabletopturniere.de/t3_tournament_results.php?tid=20421
    2. Okay, I only attended one, and I have no idea whether it was a significant tournament or not. :D But still, it's data.
    I didn't play against the HBE army so I don't have a list. Maybe someone else here does?
    Protip: Thomas Ahlich would win this tournament regardless of what army would he bring.

    Also, I'm pretty sure he would end in top3 if he only brought half of his army.
  • New

    Maelstorm wrote:

    Are some of the items too good for their price? Probably.
    Are some of the combinations too good? Almost certainly.
    Does that directly lead to a tournament dominance? Not necessarily.
    This leads us to the question if some above average items or combinations actually have enough influence on the external balance to justify a nerf. After all: all armies always had combos that performed above average. And likewise, all armies have items and combinations that are never used because they perform way below average.

    It's present in almost all games: a few best strategies, a few most efficient combinations.
    Why does that necessarily have to be a bad thing, provided it doesn't disturb the external game balance?
    Playing/painting: HbE, SA & DE ..
  • New

    Maelstorm wrote:

    Well, @Arrahed just gave you one example so there is actually proof.

    Maelstorm wrote:

    Absolutely not proven OP, no way.
    Your argumentation was a bit misleading, though. (You better used "hint" in the first case, maybe.)

    It's hard to tell from few tournaments that were won by good players what was the most important factor for that: just pure player skill, army or meta/list?

    As far as I know from his battle report, @Furion made hard use of the HBE hereditary spell.

    It would be nice to see a list from Scrub in Herford, though.

    Maybe @Frederick played against him and got a list that he can share?

    The post was edited 5 times, last by teclis2000 ().

  • New

    Maelstorm wrote:

    Absolutely not proven OP, no way. I just found it funny that you cried for anyone to show you anything suggesting that HBE won any tournaments, even after someone already showed that in the previous post.

    I would still say wait and see for the hotfixs before yelling about all the assumed nerfs. And for no data, you know that there has been a lot of internal playtesting prior to the launch of the beta and extensive external playtesting after the the launch? If something is changed, there is definitely data to back it up.
    Then you just didnt understand my point. Thats fine. ;)

    Still no solid data that HBE are OP and needs a nerf. If you wanna base your "proof" on a single tournament....well, at least this would give some insight how things are handled behind closed doors. *shrugs again*
  • New

    Furion wrote:

    Arrahed wrote:

    100 % of 2.0 tournaments I attended were won by HBE.
    1. tabletopturniere.de/t3_tournament_results.php?tid=20421
    2. Okay, I only attended one, and I have no idea whether it was a significant tournament or not. :D But still, it's data.
    I didn't play against the HBE army so I don't have a list. Maybe someone else here does?
    Protip: Thomas Ahlich would win this tournament regardless of what army would he bring.
    Also, I'm pretty sure he would end in top3 if he only brought half of his army.
    Maybe. But not everyone there was a pushover like me. ;)