This is an invitation to contribute to an experiment - one which we hope will be beneficial to the HCRealms community, as it may help settle the Firelord debate.

Since Heroclix debuted, one of the biggest topics of debate has been Firelord - is he broken, unbalanced, or just fine (or even a pushover)? The debate doesn't show any signs of being settled one way or the other - both sides have good points. The best form of evidence for either side would be game results data, but unfortunately, as Heroclix is not a rated game, Wizkids does not accumulate tournament data.

It has been brought up in many threads that Firelord teams have dominated the Gencon 2002, Origins 2002, Gencon UK 2002 and 2003 Marvel HC Championship tournaments - but many do not see this as ample evidence, especially considering the low turnout at these events (27 players at Gencon UK 2003 - I believe similar turnouts at the others).

So, CCTelander and I have decided to take it upon ourselves to accumulate unofficial playtest data, in an effort to settle the debate, at least as far as the HCRealms community goes.

Please help us in this effort. We would like to collect data on a series of forum games involving Firelord vs. non-Firelord teams.
Here are the parameters of the games, considering that we're trying to gather data regarding the game balance of the rules and figs as published by Wizkids:
1) No house rules (just to clarify, that means: dupes are allowed - some people may want to argue with this, but, again, the only way to measure the balance of the game system is to use the same team construction rules as the published game does).
2) 200 or 300 point teams (these seem to be the standard tourny formats).
3) I guess the biggest question, which I have no opinion on, is do we allow mixing of Marvel and DC? Officially speaking, they are not allowed to mix in sanctioned tournies - so we probably should go with that. On the other hand, the only reason for that is Wizkids licensing agreements with Marvel and DC - I see no reason why we couldn't mix, to get some data regarding the relative balance of the two sets.

Of course, a large body of data doesn't NECESSARILY prove anything (there will surely be any number of detractors who will dispute the validity of the data), so all of you who are already thinking, "this is pointless - you'll never change anybody's mind," may have a point. But we would like to endeavor it anyway - the endless debate about Firelord gets a little tiring, and it would be nice to have SOME evidence to point to, one way or the other.

So, use this thread as a place to suggest ways to authenticate the experiment. The more objections we can anticipate and respond to, the more compelling we can make the data.

Also, use this thread as a place to look for opponents. Let's use this as an opportunity to prove our respective points - if you believe Firelord is fine and the game needs no "fix," prove it by defeating him; or, if you believe he is an unbalanced figure, demonstrate it by using Firelord to barbeque all challengers.

Cool! I love this. I have been annoyd by so many of these debates that I think I will try it. I'll try to use normal teams too, not ones built just to beat Firelord.

I'd vote for 300 points, all Marvel. As much as I like a good mixed game, it isn't appropriate here.

-Rich

As far as the format of the games goes, I'd add a few things to Scotty's comments.

First, I think they ought to be divided into several more specific catagories, as follows:

1) 200 pt single FL
2) 200 pt Multiple FL
3) 300 pt single FL
4) 300 pt multiple FL

I think this would allow for ruling out the possibility that FL isn't broken when played as a single unit, but is when played in multiples.

I'd suggest that each pairing play a series of 3 games under each catagory, although we could switch opponents if the general consensus favors that.

My biggest concern is pairing players up in such a way that their skill levels will be roughly equal. A lopsided pairing could skew results inaccurately, and therefore we'd probably want to try to avoid it, If any of those happen, it'll probably be apparent after the first few games, so we could maybe change those opponents then, and those new pairings play those first few games over.

I don't think we should mix Marvel and DC, since beating FL teams is MUCH easier when one has access to the Batman Ally TA, and the whole idea is to prove whether or not FL is "broken" within the Marvel environment anyway.

Those are a few of my thoughts so far. Any other suggestions would be welcome.

Another thing:

I definitely think we should dispense with narratives for these games. The goal here is to test the FL is broken thesis, and having to write a narrative would just slow things down, and probably scare more than a few players off.

First question came up in another thread.
-Rich

CCTelander's response:
This will be important to ensure the validity of the data. Also, the games being played publicly as forum games, for all to see. Thus, it will be easier to judge the applicability of individual games to the data collection - to ensure, for example, that no one is deliberately throwing games to skew the data.

I'm with Rich--300 points, not mixed, Marvel only.

What is the game format? 10 turns, or play till someone gives?

-Peter

I think we need to name the players in this as far as who is involved and then pair off to do the battles.
The list as far as I am aware is:
bakija
scottcoz
TychesCoin
DCFan#1
CCTelander
ScrewTape
silverbelt?
and me, darius_dax1.

If I have missed anybody please speak up now. We should then decide which side each is on then who battles first etc. We should only conduct one battle at a time as to not make it confusing and only start the next after one of the opponents concedes victory to the other or an obvious total KO occurs.

Map selection may be a key issue as well. DO we split the games between indoor and outdoor?

Phil Dixon was also interested in this the last time we were doing it - anyone know if he's still active on the boards? I havn't seen a post from him for awhile.

BTW, anybody have any idea how to convert an excel spreadsheet into text, so I can copy and paste the results from last time we did this, in case anybody would like to see what I've got so far.

Just so you know (and can comment, critique), the data which I have been tracking thus far is:
Thread (so anyone can go back and examine the battle),
Game format (points, turn limit if any)
Team Composition
Victory Points Earned
Victory Points Given
Wins
Losses

I think darius made a valid point - indoor/outdoor should probably also be tracked. I'll go back thru the threads for the previous games I collected data on, and add that item to the spreadsheet.

Yep, Phil's still around. I exchanged a couple of PMs with him a little over a month ago. Sine you were his last opponent, why not go ahead and contact him?

I agree.

As far as maps go I think insted of a player picking a map we should assign them so we can see how each team fares on different maps. It would be a shame to play 10 games only on 2 different maps.

You did forget matthe (see his post above).

The standard tournament format is 10 rounds. I think we ought to at least tabulate the Victory Points after that, even if we're going to play them out.

Also, while I agree no pairing should be involved in more than 1 game at a time, we could easily have several pairings playing at the same time with no problems.

We usually play time limit around here. I realize that wouldn't work in this setting, so I have a question about the 10 turns. Is that 10 turns each, so the game has a total of 20 turns between the two players?

I also think map choice is part of the game. The guy playing against FL will pick and indoor map (usually) and the FL guy will pick the outdoor Marvel map (always). That should be a roll to see who goes first, just like in a game setting.

Rich

OK, how about this:

300 pt, all Marvel. Each pairing plays a 3 game series (in order to minimize the effects of chance), and then moves on to another opponent from the opposite camp until we complete 1 full rotation. Then we tally up what we've got and decide where to go from there.

Agreed?