Switch Theme:

Weighting Competitiveness  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in pl
Wicked Warp Spider





 Nurglitch wrote:
That said, it's possibly an argument for standardized competitive tournament armies.


For a long time now I have repeatedly said, that the only meaningful tournament format of 40K, that would actually measure skill, should be approached in a way similar to how Bridge tournaments are organized - pre-composed set of "puzzles" to solve, with pre-arranged armies, terrain and missions that every player plays out and the sorting of players is based on how close to optimal their decisions were. This will however never happen due to huge amount of investment necessary and total lack of listbuilding stage, which seems to be the single most important "skill" for many 40K players.
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






nou wrote:
Even sleep deprived you are right, perfectly understandable and coherent, but as expected, Peregrine understood nothing.


And even fully rested or whatever you are your smugness is matched only by your lack of understanding of the subject being discussed.

Of course, as even from high-school level analysis course we do know, that if we start at the point of 50/50 chance of winning and arrive at 100/0 point of final game resolution, there has to be point of no return (or a divine intervention rearranging the tree), because the game is a linear, continuous path from one point to another on a decision tree.


Well yes, if you deliberately simplify things to a high school level you can arrive at your conclusion. But I don't see why we should over-simplify things when we have better models available. Your decision tree model is ignoring the fact that many of its branches are effectively identical and interchangeable, and there are many paths that converge on the same game state (or close enough to the same game state that the trivial differences aren't worth considering). There is rarely a single point during the game where you can point to an event and say "this is the one that did it".

As I said before, for a much better model you can consider the concept of win probability (taken from a football game in this case):



The y-axis gives the probability of each team winning, the x-axis goes leftward from the start of the game to the end. After each play you look at your statistical models of how the current game state is predicted to end, and plot a point on the graph. What you get is a trend line, a successful play by a team brings it closer to their side, a successful play by the other team pushes it the other way. It's the sum of incremental advantages, each success or failure adding up over time until there is no more time left and the winner becomes certain. It can get very close to 100%, but doesn't get all the way there until the end (or at, at most, the last few seconds when it is no longer physically possible to score fast enough to win even if the other team stopped defending). And even if you consider some percentage less than 100% to be the point of no return, where victory is decided in all but name, it's still rarely a single event. For example, let's say team A is at 90% win probability, and you consider 95% win probability to be the point of no return. Late in the game team B fumbles the ball, team A recovers and kneels out the clock. That fumble pushed the win probability over 95%, but it wasn't a unique event. Aside from the fact that a lot of cumulative smaller increments had to add up to get to 90% in the first place there was likely to be a 90% to 95% step in the near future anyway. If team B doesn't fumble on that play maybe they fail to get a first down and team A kneels out the clock. Or maybe they score but fail to recover the onside kick. Or maybe they recover the kick but can't score on the final hail mary play. It's absurd to single out the play that happened to take that final step when it's so interchangeable with a lot of other potential outcomes at that point in the game.

In 40k terms there are very few events that create such a swing in win probability that you can point to them and say "that decided the game", especially compared to other games. There are just so many units on the table, each rolling so many dice, that the win probability effect of a single roll is almost always very small. And once you start talking about a series of rolls you're looking at a chance of sufficient deviation from the average that you can say "the dice decided it" that is in the general range of "once every few games". And that's a pretty good description of luck not being a major factor.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in pl
Wicked Warp Spider





I'm not simplifying, the continuity principle is fundamental to analysis. What you are trying to do, is to compare a discreet resolution trees to a non-quantifiable continuous resolution model in real life sports. FYI, the probabilities you are advocating, when calculated in 40K, are based on counting sums of descreet tree branch paths that result in desired outcome and dividing those by the total number of descreet tree paths. Because game of 40K is descreet, you ALWAYS have a tipping point and you perfectly know, that there are games, where this tipping point is the very first roll in the game - who has first turn. Only in special cases paths are interchangable enough so there is a group of tipping events and I have already said, that it is possible in play modes like EW, but very unlikely in modes like Maelstrom or other progressive scoring scenarios. You are focusing on those modes, which support your position and disregard all those against as non existent or non important and this is why you only see a part of the whole 40K landscape and that is why your reasoning is flawed (and I must add, that this is very typical for you in your approach to pretty much all possible topics of discussion).

But that is enough me lecturing you on analysis, go educate yourself further on your own.

Edit: And before you throw in the argument that movement is non-descreet parameter in 40k, because it's the only non descreet one, all you achieve is that instead of counting easy sums you now must sum single parameter path integrals (in totally precise analytical model), hardly a difficult task to do, especially when you can cut off unoptimal trajectories in 40K very easily and our brains are especially good at doing so intuitively on the fly during the game, so you can reasonably approximate movement as discreet parameter.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/01/03 15:35:52


 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






nou wrote:
I'm not simplifying, the continuity principle is fundamental to analysis. What you are trying to do, is to compare a discreet resolution trees to a non-quantifiable continuous resolution model in real life sports. FYI, the probabilities you are advocating, when calculated in 40K, are based on counting sums of descreet tree branch paths that result in desired outcome and dividing those by the total number of descreet tree paths. Because game of 40K is descreet, you ALWAYS have a tipping point and you perfectly know, that there are games, where this tipping point is the very first roll in the game - who has first turn. Only in special cases paths are interchangable enough so there is a group of tipping events and I have already said, that it is possible in play modes like EW, but very unlikely in modes like Maelstrom or other progressive scoring scenarios. You are focusing on those modes, which support your position and disregard all those against as non existent or non important and this is why you only see a part of the whole 40K landscape and that is why your reasoning is flawed (and I must add, that this is very typical for you in your approach to pretty much all possible topics of discussion).


That is not how it works, at all. You're assuming a weird linear model that simply does not apply. Even if there is technically a finite number of branches in the tree that finite number is so incalculably huge that it's effectively an infinite spectrum. And you don't necessarily have a single tipping point, win probability can go back and forth over the course of a game. FFS, you haven't even defined "tipping point" in any quantifiable terms, yet you continue to use it as if there's a single discreet event that everyone can agree is the point.

And no, progressive scoring doesn't change this. Progressive scoring exists in sports and you still have the exact kind of model I'm describing. A team can build up a lead that is near-impossible to overcome in the time left in the game, but that lead is almost always the result of a long series of incremental steps and not a single discrete event.

(I do, of course, reject Maelstrom missions as utter , but I don't think I need to waste time arguing such an obvious fact.)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/03 15:42:00


There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in pl
Wicked Warp Spider





You are so adorable when you reach the boundaries of your comprehension and start loosing your nerve All definitions required for this discussions were provided couple of times already by me and Daedalus, it is perfectly clear what kind of analysis we are talking about and how what you propose is a subset of a more powerfull and accurate tool, and what is the difference in applicability of deterministic retro-analysis and probabilistic forward analysis, basically everything has been already said in this thread already yet you still don't see it. And the fact you don't see huge difference in analysability of EW vs Maelstrom speaks volumes about your understanding of the subject at hand.

At this point I can only repeat my advice from long time ago - I actually think your understanding of game theory would improve greatly if you learned how to play Bridge on competent level.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/03 17:27:43


 
   
Made in ca
Decrepit Dakkanaut





nou wrote:
 Nurglitch wrote:
That said, it's possibly an argument for standardized competitive tournament armies.


For a long time now I have repeatedly said, that the only meaningful tournament format of 40K, that would actually measure skill, should be approached in a way similar to how Bridge tournaments are organized - pre-composed set of "puzzles" to solve, with pre-arranged armies, terrain and missions that every player plays out and the sorting of players is based on how close to optimal their decisions were. This will however never happen due to huge amount of investment necessary and total lack of listbuilding stage, which seems to be the single most important "skill" for many 40K players.


I feel like it's something GW could promote. It would be easy for them to sell a tournament box for each army containing a standardized 'tournament-ready' army.
   
Made in pl
Wicked Warp Spider





 Nurglitch wrote:
nou wrote:
 Nurglitch wrote:
That said, it's possibly an argument for standardized competitive tournament armies.


For a long time now I have repeatedly said, that the only meaningful tournament format of 40K, that would actually measure skill, should be approached in a way similar to how Bridge tournaments are organized - pre-composed set of "puzzles" to solve, with pre-arranged armies, terrain and missions that every player plays out and the sorting of players is based on how close to optimal their decisions were. This will however never happen due to huge amount of investment necessary and total lack of listbuilding stage, which seems to be the single most important "skill" for many 40K players.


I feel like it's something GW could promote. It would be easy for them to sell a tournament box for each army containing a standardized 'tournament-ready' army.


Yes, it could be "easy" for GW to support such format (it even isn't obvious how it would affect the overall sales), but we already have a huge split between ITC, ETC and GW GT crowds that cannot agree on a single universal tournament format. After Kirby reign 40K community went pretty independent from GW and it will take some time for GW to actually get a definite hold on the steering wheel.
   
Made in ca
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Nothing saying that GW can't support multiple formats. Wizards of the Coast does that, as I understand it, although I don't play Magic personally. Sticking a bunch of SKUs in a single box doesn't mean they need to enforce a standard, just provide an option.
   
Made in us
Sure Space Wolves Land Raider Pilot






Doesn't Warhammer Underworlds do that? With the pre-arranged armies, terrain and missions? I think you still have some freedom of picking cards? It's also on a much much smaller scale similar to X-wing. I haven't played the game so I am admittedly ignorant on the subject.

I have enjoyed reading the argument by the way. I would say I'm leaning more toward Peregrine's argument. To say that over a 2.5 hr battle with over 2000 points that the game was decided by who has the first turn or by one dice roll out of hundreds seems very simplified. We aren't taking terrain, positioning, or tactics into account at all.

I find the sports analogy very fitting as well. While sports teams don't suffer attrition the same way armies would they do suffer attrition through fatigue and adjustments. I like the graph and I can say that if I had sat back and analyzed how my game was going and the probably of who would win turn by turn and phase by phase I think it would fit along the same graph. More likely a decision I made or didn't make in the first turn could positively or negatively balance the game as a whole but I believe multiple decisions would change the outcome as a whole. Isn't that how the great players stay great players? They understand the game, know the armies, know the missions and make decisions that best put their armies in positions to win?

I don't have a dog in this fight though just some observations.
   
Made in pl
Wicked Warp Spider





 Jjohnso11 wrote:
Doesn't Warhammer Underworlds do that? With the pre-arranged armies, terrain and missions? I think you still have some freedom of picking cards? It's also on a much much smaller scale similar to X-wing. I haven't played the game so I am admittedly ignorant on the subject.

I have enjoyed reading the argument by the way. I would say I'm leaning more toward Peregrine's argument. To say that over a 2.5 hr battle with over 2000 points that the game was decided by who has the first turn or by one dice roll out of hundreds seems very simplified. We aren't taking terrain, positioning, or tactics into account at all.

I find the sports analogy very fitting as well. While sports teams don't suffer attrition the same way armies would they do suffer attrition through fatigue and adjustments. I like the graph and I can say that if I had sat back and analyzed how my game was going and the probably of who would win turn by turn and phase by phase I think it would fit along the same graph. More likely a decision I made or didn't make in the first turn could positively or negatively balance the game as a whole but I believe multiple decisions would change the outcome as a whole. Isn't that how the great players stay great players? They understand the game, know the armies, know the missions and make decisions that best put their armies in positions to win?

I don't have a dog in this fight though just some observations.


What you describe here is trying to forsee how the game progresses through entire tree of all possible games. Such tree branches on every decision made and on every roll made. Such a tree is typically too complex in first two-three turns but becomes quite analysable up front towards the end of third turn and at that moment you have some primary branches that were accesible at the begining of the first turn no longer available to reach with any decisions you could possibly make from this moment forward. Because of nature of 40K your decisions do not affect the game play directly (except for stratagem usage), every decision ultimately materializes or is vetoed by random dice roll. If all remaining accesible branches are loosing branches, you have already lost, you just wait for final game resolution. Now while this is difficult to do up front in the heat of battle, you can easily backtrace steps from the end state of the game to reach a point earlier in the game that could have flipped a branch significant enough for you to win the game. Difference between myself and Daedalus vs Peregrine is that two of us realize this difference of forward and backward analysis, while Peregrine focuses solely on forward analysis of the entire tree of potential resolutions of the game and does not recognize, that with each passing decision and every passing turn, the remaining tree is smaller than it was before. Sports comparison is flawed exactly because game trees of sport games and tabletop games are totally different in topology.

In 40k games, starting with 15 unique units per side (as Deadalus briefly calculated based on dakka list discussions) and assuming uniform attrition throughout 7 turn game, there are around 500 decision points divided on both players when you start the game (I assume the most generalist scenarios, when every unit can move, shoot/run, charge and combat in every turn and I think it is very generous assumption), but this is rapidly reduced and on top of third turn only 120 remain to be made. Due to "no action is worse than any action" economy of 40K and rock-paper-scissors nature of target selection many, many of those "decisions" are illusory (obvious choices). As I said - this game is descreet and you can graph 40K games on large sheets of paper, especially simple EW end game scoring missions. What I and Daedalus picture here is not black magic, but actually the core concept behind machine intelligence in discreet games. Theoryhammering last 2-3 turns is common occurence because those trees are often small enough to be thoroughly discussable in shorter time than actually rolling dice and playing them out.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





The Golden Throne

Was terrain mentioned in this mess? An often overlooked factor.
   
Made in pl
Wicked Warp Spider





 Byte wrote:
Was terrain mentioned in this mess? An often overlooked factor.


In the mess of game tree analysis? Was by me, in context of separating game turns into smaller parallel skirmishes, when you don't have the luxury of redundancy in target selection.

In the mess of entire thread? Yes, in context of heavily modifying weight of tactical prowess.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





The Golden Throne

Kinda not following all your babble. All things considered. Two armies would/will have two completely different games on radically different game tables. Throw that into your equations. Terrain plays into the strengths and/or weaknesses into particular army builds.

Than consider command points (some armies have a lot, some little) that allow core rule deviations. 40k has become very like MTG with all the gotcha hijinx of strategems.

I find the notion of this thread generally silly. You cant high/low 40k. Even the player ranking system just gets you invites. No "byes" or bracket jumps.

Also consider the common occurrence of cheating. Very common.
   
Made in gb
Smokin' Skorcha Driver




London UK

This kind of heuristic probability approach to prediction is entirely valid but would require inclusion of many more variables than you have listed.

In addition each variable would be conditional and comprised of its own formula to assess it. Add to that the fact that the variables must change per the rules of the game which change based on mission. Since most 40k games use different missions its impossible to assess community wide. You would need to recalculate variables based on the specific set of circumstances which will change constantly.

For example at previously 9 hive tyrant builds were dominating in european and australian meta's but no one used them in the US because the rules didn't favour them until one particular tournament (Nova?)where Matt Root crushed with that build. The game was then CHANGED drastically by the rule of 3.

You could then say well lets look only at LVO results and compare them to this years LVO BUT the terrain has changed, the rules have changed, the codices have changed. Therefore calculating a player skill based on historical performance is now invalid.

For this kind of probability based assessment to work your variables must assume that there are certain constants and these constants do not currently exist. Like in Sports betting where the rules for boxing don't change so you can apply it.

I think it is close enough to impossible to track the data to compile the necessary variables that we may as well say its impossible.

Having said that your formula could work but it needs to be far more complex
   
Made in ca
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Byte wrote:
Was terrain mentioned in this mess? An often overlooked factor.


Back in 5th edition I predicted that GW would incorporate terrain, not just fortifications, into armies so that players would bring their own terrain. In retrospect I can see why that didn't come true, but for competition it seems logical (if not, y'know, practical).
   
Made in us
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





How would players bringing their own terrain be logical? How would that even work. I bring a gun line and no LOS blockers, so now we have a sparse terrain game? OR if I want a lot of LOS blocking terrain I bring a ton? Nah, for competitive play tables need to be standardized as so not to play too much of a role in the outcome of the game.

That isn't to say all tables must be the same, but they need to fall into a predictable set of terrain styles so that they can be accounted for.
   
Made in ca
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Players bring their own terrain is logical because it is model terrain and players are expected to bring their own models.

It would work like bringing models works, by assigning points values and other limits and structures governing its use and deployment. We already have fortifications, and frankly I'm irked that where vehicles and fortifications have been made consistent with the other rules in 40k, 'neutral' terrain remains indestructable

Doing so is impractical because hauling an army is already a big hassle for players, and it conflicts with the standardization a competitive tournament should have. Being impractical and counter-productive doesn't mean something isn't also logical.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





 Nurglitch wrote:
 Byte wrote:
Was terrain mentioned in this mess? An often overlooked factor.


Back in 5th edition I predicted that GW would incorporate terrain, not just fortifications, into armies so that players would bring their own terrain. In retrospect I can see why that didn't come true, but for competition it seems logical (if not, y'know, practical).


Well then you predicted right since for example Nurgle can now poop deadly nurgle tree's as they cross the table.

That said for the rest of the discussion...dice math fails the moment it hits reality. Example I knew a professor a real professor who thought he had crunched all the numbers, and variables to build a optimized army. I don't think he ever won a game against anybody I know of. While some people via for standardized terrain at tournaments and it would seem a good idea UNTIL you realize the competitive nature of tournament players would then build armies with that understanding in mind. In fact I'm of the mind that terrain should vary wildly from table to table to cripple some armies, and make others rejoice. Forcing tournament players to build lists with a more well rounded approach.
One of the biggest reasons I used to love playing games at the big bunker was they had a dozen themed fixed terrain tables. I mean you roll off and pick sides...picking a side is supposed be a tactical decision. But the way most tables are arranged now people just pick the side they are on so they don't have to walk around to the other side, and move all their stuff.
   
Made in us
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





 Nurglitch wrote:
Players bring their own terrain is logical because it is model terrain and players are expected to bring their own models.

It would work like bringing models works, by assigning points values and other limits and structures governing its use and deployment. We already have fortifications, and frankly I'm irked that where vehicles and fortifications have been made consistent with the other rules in 40k, 'neutral' terrain remains indestructable

Doing so is impractical because hauling an army is already a big hassle for players, and it conflicts with the standardization a competitive tournament should have. Being impractical and counter-productive doesn't mean something isn't also logical.


It isn't logical though unless you are going to overhaul a lot of points. Because terrain is not worth the same to all players, so you force some armies to invest more points in terrain to make their army work. That would need to be factored into unit cost. Further there are not that many official terrain models, so you are severely limiting what gets used. Sorry it is not logical that the players dictate the game table without a lot of changes.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





You also have to take into account power level, since alot of people use that points system for competitive play. There should also be a variable if someone is using uncompetitive units and player placed terrain.

My 2 cents.

 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Feasting on the souls of unworthy opponents

I am equal parts enthralled and frustrated by this thread.

Math expresses a series of universal constants, and where linguistic limitations and subjective opinions create divergent perceptions, math can get people to see each other's points of view. Seeing this conversation continue is engrossing.

On the flip side, logical fallacies - which are fundamental failures in critical thinking skills - so called because they are such common errors in reasoning that they get fancy names - are rife in here. I keep seeing the same four logical fallacies propagated in this thread.

For example, an "Ad Hominem" logical fallacy:

When people think of “arguments,” often their first thought is of shouting matches riddled with personal attacks. Ironically, personal attacks run contrary to rational arguments. In logic and rhetoric, personal attacks are called ad hominems. Ad hominem is Latin for “against the man.” Instead of advancing good sound reasoning, ad hominems replace logical argumentation with attack-language unrelated to the truth of the matter. More specifically, ad hominems are a fallacy of relevance where someone rejects or criticizes another person’s view on the basis of personal characteristics, background, physical appearance, or other features irrelevant to the argument at issue.

An ad hominem is more than just an insult. It’s an insult used as if it were an argument or evidence in support of a conclusion. Verbally attacking people proves nothing about the truth or falsity of their claims. Ad hominems are common known in politics as “mudslinging.” Instead of addressing the candidate’s stance on the issues, or addressing his or her effectiveness as a statesman or stateswoman, ad hominems focus on personality issues, speech patterns, wardrobe, style, and other things that affect popularity but have no bearing on their competence. In this way, ad hominems can be unethical, seeking to manipulate voters by appealing to irrelevant foibles and name-calling instead of addressing core issues.

I also see some Strawman arguments, a couple appeals to authority, a couple of false dilemmas ....

Anyway; I hope you guys will think about the intellectual weight of the opinions you posit through the filter of reason.

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Biloxi, MS USA

Wow, Dash, be more of a condescending ass, please.

You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie
The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was 
   
Made in us
Clousseau




You'll never see a standardized tournament list. It would indeed showcase skill as opposed to miin/max fapping, but the thing is based on a considerable number of polls over the past decade in a variety of forums and user-input communications - list building is probably the single most thing that players find "interesting" in 40k and its removal for a format where you had to field a certain list would be largely ignored.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





One thing to generally remember is that A tends to inform B. As much as we like to decry the netdeck, the truth is that for a player to netdeck, they generally have to be thoughtful enough about the game to bother researching online for winning lists in the first place. That's not to say it takes a high level of skill to netlist; just that a lot of skill just comes from a desire and willingness to research and learn about the game. A player with a netlist might not be smart enough to build their own car, but they've done enough research to know which cars have been well reviewed, which ones have had major recalls and maybe just maybe have even taken their purchase for a test drive or two. This can make netlists seem a bit more powerful than they actually are, because generally speaking the worst players in this category are still upper-mid tier or so.
   
Made in us
Beautiful and Deadly Keeper of Secrets





 Dashofpepper wrote:

Anyway; I hope you guys will think about the intellectual weight of the opinions you posit through the filter of reason.


Wow this is just some of the most condescending things I've seen today. I mean.. Seriously man, tone it down a bit.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
 Dashofpepper wrote:

Anyway; I hope you guys will think about the intellectual weight of the opinions you posit through the filter of reason.


Wow this is just some of the most condescending things I've seen today. I mean.. Seriously man, tone it down a bit.


Agreed. That comment was pretty uncalled for.

I'm not even really sure what the point of the whole endeavour in the original post is, TBH. Assuming such a metric could be expressed as a formula as in the OP, the individual terms would still be so subjective I'm not even sure how useful a model it would be even assuming you could determine whether the model is accurate in the first place. Then again, maybe I haven't filtered my opinion through the requisite amount of reason to be worthy of taking part in the discussion.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Pasadena

Slipspace wrote:
 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
 Dashofpepper wrote:

Anyway; I hope you guys will think about the intellectual weight of the opinions you posit through the filter of reason.


Wow this is just some of the most condescending things I've seen today. I mean.. Seriously man, tone it down a bit.


Agreed. That comment was pretty uncalled for.

I'm not even really sure what the point of the whole endeavour in the original post is, TBH. Assuming such a metric could be expressed as a formula as in the OP, the individual terms would still be so subjective I'm not even sure how useful a model it would be even assuming you could determine whether the model is accurate in the first place. Then again, maybe I haven't filtered my opinion through the requisite amount of reason to be worthy of taking part in the discussion.


Solid.

Las Vegas Open Head Judge
I'm sorry if it hurts your feelings or pride, but your credentials matter. Even on the internet.
"If you do not have the knowledge, you do not have the right to the opinion." -Plato

 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Sentient OverBear






Clearwater, FL

I do believe this thread has run its course.

Thanks for playing!

DQ:70S++G+++M+B++I+Pw40k94+ID+++A++/sWD178R+++T(I)DM+++

Trust me, no matter what damage they have the potential to do, single-shot weapons always flatter to deceive in 40k.                                                                                                       Rule #1
- BBAP

 
   
 
Forum Index » Tournament and Local Gaming Discussion
Go to: