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.
xmbk wrote:There's nothing "damned if you do" about not knowing Seekers are and were #2 on the chart. It's straight up not knowing your gak.
You're missing the context as to the other parts of what was purportedly said. That's the reason I said "damned if you do, damned if you don't". Whether or not he was right or wrong about minutiae, he'd get lambasted for it.
There is no context to not knowing the rule. The way the mistake was worded is not simply misspeaking, it's blatantly not knowing the rules. His opinion on it's worth is irrelevant.
You're really extending yourself to defend him, not sure why.
Considering the poster I was replying to didn't even know that yes, a Skyray can benefit from its own Markerlights?
It should be obvious as to why I'm "extending myself to defend him".
A Skyray's ability to benefit from it's own markerlights was not anywhere near the context though. The premise that the Skyray can benefit from it's markerlights was already a given, the crux was that you're shooting yourself in the foot by committing to shooting Seekers before knowing if you have enough marker hits landed, thus putting yourself in a position to either A) sacrifice the seekers or B) sacrifice 1 CP to get markers. You're just making up strawmen at this point.
None of that matters. The dude didn't know a basic rule.
I just want to keep it honest. Sloppy rules writing has been a weakness for a while. 8th has shown some promise regarding GW starting to take the rules for their game more seriously. Some of the codex are really good (Nids are great for balance/army feel). Some seem to really not understand their armies (Eldar/Tau). Tau will be able to field some very powerful lists. But some of the stuff in here makes no sense whatsoever, and seeing that the designers do not fully understand the army they just wrote the book on is disturbing.
It's not a good sign for GW to allow this.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/03/14 18:19:00
xmbk wrote:There's nothing "damned if you do" about not knowing Seekers are and were #2 on the chart. It's straight up not knowing your gak.
You're missing the context as to the other parts of what was purportedly said. That's the reason I said "damned if you do, damned if you don't". Whether or not he was right or wrong about minutiae, he'd get lambasted for it.
There is no context to not knowing the rule. The way the mistake was worded is not simply misspeaking, it's blatantly not knowing the rules. His opinion on it's worth is irrelevant.
You're really extending yourself to defend him, not sure why.
Considering the poster I was replying to didn't even know that yes, a Skyray can benefit from its own Markerlights?
It should be obvious as to why I'm "extending myself to defend him".
I wouldn't bother anymore Kan. They have their narrative for why their army sucks and nothing but a GT win will shake them out of it.
xmbk wrote:There's nothing "damned if you do" about not knowing Seekers are and were #2 on the chart. It's straight up not knowing your gak.
You're missing the context as to the other parts of what was purportedly said. That's the reason I said "damned if you do, damned if you don't". Whether or not he was right or wrong about minutiae, he'd get lambasted for it.
There is no context to not knowing the rule. The way the mistake was worded is not simply misspeaking, it's blatantly not knowing the rules. His opinion on it's worth is irrelevant.
You're really extending yourself to defend him, not sure why.
Considering the poster I was replying to didn't even know that yes, a Skyray can benefit from its own Markerlights?
It should be obvious as to why I'm "extending myself to defend him".
I wouldn't bother anymore Kan. They have their narrative for why their army sucks and nothing but a GT win will shake them out of it.
I wouldn't say Tau suck, they're probably solidly mid tier, but that doesn't change the fact that skyrays will still suck (i.e.), or that the commander "fix" was incredibly lazy, and was probably the result of getting a lead rules designer who hasn't touched tau before.
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
xmbk wrote:There's nothing "damned if you do" about not knowing Seekers are and were #2 on the chart. It's straight up not knowing your gak.
You're missing the context as to the other parts of what was purportedly said. That's the reason I said "damned if you do, damned if you don't". Whether or not he was right or wrong about minutiae, he'd get lambasted for it.
There is no context to not knowing the rule. The way the mistake was worded is not simply misspeaking, it's blatantly not knowing the rules. His opinion on it's worth is irrelevant.
You're really extending yourself to defend him, not sure why.
Considering the poster I was replying to didn't even know that yes, a Skyray can benefit from its own Markerlights?
It should be obvious as to why I'm "extending myself to defend him".
I wouldn't bother anymore Kan. They have their narrative for why their army sucks and nothing but a GT win will shake them out of it.
I wouldn't say Tau suck, they're probably solidly mid tier, but that doesn't change the fact that skyrays will still suck (i.e.), or that the commander "fix" was incredibly lazy, and was probably the result of getting a lead rules designer who hasn't touched tau before.
Lol. Tau are such a weird community to belong to. I can only assume the reason Gamgee is being quiet is because he is standing outside Warhammer World yelling "Blue Lives Matter".
xmbk wrote:There's nothing "damned if you do" about not knowing Seekers are and were #2 on the chart. It's straight up not knowing your gak.
You're missing the context as to the other parts of what was purportedly said. That's the reason I said "damned if you do, damned if you don't". Whether or not he was right or wrong about minutiae, he'd get lambasted for it.
There is no context to not knowing the rule. The way the mistake was worded is not simply misspeaking, it's blatantly not knowing the rules. His opinion on it's worth is irrelevant.
You're really extending yourself to defend him, not sure why.
Considering the poster I was replying to didn't even know that yes, a Skyray can benefit from its own Markerlights?
It should be obvious as to why I'm "extending myself to defend him".
I wouldn't bother anymore Kan. They have their narrative for why their army sucks and nothing but a GT win will shake them out of it.
I wouldn't say Tau suck, they're probably solidly mid tier, but that doesn't change the fact that skyrays will still suck (i.e.), or that the commander "fix" was incredibly lazy, and was probably the result of getting a lead rules designer who hasn't touched tau before.
Lol. Tau are such a weird community to belong to. I can only assume the reason Gamgee is being quiet is because he is standing outside Warhammer World yelling "Blue Lives Matter".
Did you miss the stream where he said he only started tau a few weeks before? Or would you like to continue conveniently ignoring that?
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
xmbk wrote:There's nothing "damned if you do" about not knowing Seekers are and were #2 on the chart. It's straight up not knowing your gak.
You're missing the context as to the other parts of what was purportedly said. That's the reason I said "damned if you do, damned if you don't". Whether or not he was right or wrong about minutiae, he'd get lambasted for it.
There is no context to not knowing the rule. The way the mistake was worded is not simply misspeaking, it's blatantly not knowing the rules. His opinion on it's worth is irrelevant.
You're really extending yourself to defend him, not sure why.
Considering the poster I was replying to didn't even know that yes, a Skyray can benefit from its own Markerlights?
It should be obvious as to why I'm "extending myself to defend him".
I wouldn't bother anymore Kan. They have their narrative for why their army sucks and nothing but a GT win will shake them out of it.
I wouldn't say Tau suck, they're probably solidly mid tier, but that doesn't change the fact that skyrays will still suck (i.e.), or that the commander "fix" was incredibly lazy, and was probably the result of getting a lead rules designer who hasn't touched tau before.
Lol. Tau are such a weird community to belong to. I can only assume the reason Gamgee is being quiet is because he is standing outside Warhammer World yelling "Blue Lives Matter".
Did you miss the stream where he said he only started tau a few weeks before? Or would you like to continue conveniently ignoring that?
Correction:
He stated that he only picked up a Start Collecting a few weeks before. Dude is in the process of actually painting a new Sa'cea army.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
xmbk wrote: None of that matters. The dude didn't know a basic rule.
So? I know "tournament" players who don't know basic rules. Doesn't mean jack.
I just want to keep it honest. Sloppy rules writing has been a weakness for a while. 8th has shown some promise regarding GW starting to take the rules for their game more seriously. Some of the codex are really good (Nids are great for balance/army feel). Some seem to really not understand their armies (Eldar/Tau). Tau will be able to field some very powerful lists. But some of the stuff in here makes no sense whatsoever, and seeing that the designers do not fully understand the army they just wrote the book on is disturbing.
It's not a good sign for GW to allow this.
What I would be more concerned about is the fact that balance keeps seeming to be done in response to tournament results, not actual play.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/14 19:21:52
xmbk wrote:There's nothing "damned if you do" about not knowing Seekers are and were #2 on the chart. It's straight up not knowing your gak.
You're missing the context as to the other parts of what was purportedly said. That's the reason I said "damned if you do, damned if you don't". Whether or not he was right or wrong about minutiae, he'd get lambasted for it.
There is no context to not knowing the rule. The way the mistake was worded is not simply misspeaking, it's blatantly not knowing the rules. His opinion on it's worth is irrelevant.
You're really extending yourself to defend him, not sure why.
Considering the poster I was replying to didn't even know that yes, a Skyray can benefit from its own Markerlights?
It should be obvious as to why I'm "extending myself to defend him".
I wouldn't bother anymore Kan. They have their narrative for why their army sucks and nothing but a GT win will shake them out of it.
I wouldn't say Tau suck, they're probably solidly mid tier, but that doesn't change the fact that skyrays will still suck (i.e.), or that the commander "fix" was incredibly lazy, and was probably the result of getting a lead rules designer who hasn't touched tau before.
Lol. Tau are such a weird community to belong to. I can only assume the reason Gamgee is being quiet is because he is standing outside Warhammer World yelling "Blue Lives Matter".
Did you miss the stream where he said he only started tau a few weeks before? Or would you like to continue conveniently ignoring that?
Correction:
He stated that he only picked up a Start Collecting a few weeks before. Dude is in the process of actually painting a new Sa'cea army.
So maybe I missed something, but he is new to Tau right? I mean saying he was a "recent convert to the Greater Good" along with the bit about only picking up a Start Collecting box, doesn't exactly sound like a long term tau player, or someone who's touched them before.
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
xmbk wrote:There's nothing "damned if you do" about not knowing Seekers are and were #2 on the chart. It's straight up not knowing your gak.
You're missing the context as to the other parts of what was purportedly said. That's the reason I said "damned if you do, damned if you don't". Whether or not he was right or wrong about minutiae, he'd get lambasted for it.
There is no context to not knowing the rule. The way the mistake was worded is not simply misspeaking, it's blatantly not knowing the rules. His opinion on it's worth is irrelevant.
You're really extending yourself to defend him, not sure why.
Considering the poster I was replying to didn't even know that yes, a Skyray can benefit from its own Markerlights?
It should be obvious as to why I'm "extending myself to defend him".
I wouldn't bother anymore Kan. They have their narrative for why their army sucks and nothing but a GT win will shake them out of it.
I wouldn't say Tau suck, they're probably solidly mid tier, but that doesn't change the fact that skyrays will still suck (i.e.), or that the commander "fix" was incredibly lazy, and was probably the result of getting a lead rules designer who hasn't touched tau before.
Lol. Tau are such a weird community to belong to. I can only assume the reason Gamgee is being quiet is because he is standing outside Warhammer World yelling "Blue Lives Matter".
So maybe I missed something, but he is new to Tau right? I mean saying he was a "recent convert to the Greater Good" along with the bit about only picking up a Start Collecting box, doesn't exactly sound like a long term tau player, or someone who's touched them before.
He is not. He mentioned he's played them in years past, shelved them, and came back to them since he got to work on the book.
While it may seem a very harsh way to impose a hard limit on commanders atleast they didn't get comissared, into being unplayable. Also allowing coldstars to take any 4 weapons is essentially a buff.
Tau is going to be a good playable army it just might not play in the way the fluff would suggest.
The more I have seen of the codex the more it looks like a powerful army can be built from it but its going to take some weird list building to maximise the potential
So maybe I missed something, but he is new to Tau right? I mean saying he was a "recent convert to the Greater Good" along with the bit about only picking up a Start Collecting box, doesn't exactly sound like a long term tau player, or someone who's touched them before.
He is not. He mentioned he's played them in years past, shelved them, and came back to them since he got to work on the book.
You don't happen to have a time stamp (or a rough estimate) of it do you? I don't remember that offhand
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
So maybe I missed something, but he is new to Tau right? I mean saying he was a "recent convert to the Greater Good" along with the bit about only picking up a Start Collecting box, doesn't exactly sound like a long term tau player, or someone who's touched them before.
He is not. He mentioned he's played them in years past, shelved them, and came back to them since he got to work on the book.
You don't happen to have a time stamp (or a rough estimate) of it do you? I don't remember that offhand
It's not in the video. His personal social media has it:
Sa'cea has historically been the Sept I paint. Have had two T'au armies in the past, both with orange markings. It's more because I like the colour contrast than any particular rules effect though!
So maybe I missed something, but he is new to Tau right? I mean saying he was a "recent convert to the Greater Good" along with the bit about only picking up a Start Collecting box, doesn't exactly sound like a long term tau player, or someone who's touched them before.
He is not. He mentioned he's played them in years past, shelved them, and came back to them since he got to work on the book.
You don't happen to have a time stamp (or a rough estimate) of it do you? I don't remember that offhand
It's not in the video. His personal social media has it:
Sa'cea has historically been the Sept I paint. Have had two T'au armies in the past, both with orange markings. It's more because I like the colour contrast than any particular rules effect though!
Hm, ok. Wonder how long ago then. 4th ed tau played very differently from 6th/7th.
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
Wolfblade wrote: Hm, ok. Wonder how long ago then. 4th ed tau played very differently from 6th/7th.
I'd consider that a huge boon, 4th edition Tau were way better written and had a clearer direction than fanboy-like inflation of every number, bad balance and OP stuff everywhere they got later. If anything, all the insane, fluff breaking changes should be reverted back to 4th then built up from there, and while Codex doesn't do perfect job in this regard it does have some needed changes.
Anyway, I am puzzled this is still going on. The Tau got to have their cake and eat it too, in the form of keeping their OP unit at the cost of slight spam reduction, the injustice!
Seeing GW could have say deleted Commanders from book completely, making them just Crisis Suit upgrade adding slight buff aura on top of one suit per army for 3 CP (SM style nerf), or have Commanders douse your own units with his guns once enemy starts killing them to ""bolster their resolve"", making the commander kill more units than enemy did (plus slashing the Fire Warrior BS to 6+ for no reason whatsoever in overnerf kneejerk, aka IG style nerf), or slap the "loss of focus" rule on Commanders, giving them -1 cumulative penalty to firing more than one gun of the same type per army, while limiting fusion, ion and plasma guns to one per army total (psyker style nerf), complaining they instead chose """nerf""" that is completely meaningless for anyone who wasn't spamming only the thing that was supposed to be the army general to the exclusion of everything else, is pretty insane.
Especially in the era where horribly broken things like ass cannons or terminators are nerfed into the ground, instead of being left alone with tiny, easily circumvented restriction fluffy players will never even notice...
Wolfblade wrote: Hm, ok. Wonder how long ago then. 4th ed tau played very differently from 6th/7th.
I'd consider that a huge boon, 4th edition Tau were way better written and had a clearer direction than fanboy-like inflation of every number, bad balance and OP stuff everywhere they got later. If anything, all the insane, fluff breaking changes should be reverted back to 4th then built up from there, and while Codex doesn't do perfect job in this regard it does have some needed changes.
Anyway, I am puzzled this is still going on. The Tau got to have their cake and eat it too, in the form of keeping their OP unit at the cost of slight spam reduction, the injustice!
Seeing GW could have say deleted Commanders from book completely, making them just Crisis Suit upgrade adding slight buff aura on top of one suit per army for 3 CP (SM style nerf), or have Commanders douse your own units with his guns once enemy starts killing them to ""bolster their resolve"", making the commander kill more units than enemy did (plus slashing the Fire Warrior BS to 6+ for no reason whatsoever in overnerf kneejerk, aka IG style nerf), or slap the "loss of focus" rule on Commanders, giving them -1 cumulative penalty to firing more than one gun of the same type per army, while limiting fusion, ion and plasma guns to one per army total (psyker style nerf), complaining they instead chose """nerf""" that is completely meaningless for anyone who wasn't spamming only the thing that was supposed to be the army general to the exclusion of everything else, is pretty insane.
Especially in the era where horribly broken things like ass cannons or terminators are nerfed into the ground, instead of being left alone with tiny, easily circumvented restriction fluffy players will never even notice...
Its very noticeable even if you aren't trying to spam commanders. Non-T'au septs are going to have to spam Cadre Fireblades and Ethereals if they want multiple battalions let alone brigades. Cadre fireblades abilities do not stack besides being a solid markerlight platform. Ethereals are largely useless, and do not even work on the first turn if you go second. Spamming multiple Ethereals on the battlefield is even worse for fluff than Commander spam was. If named characters weren't Sept locked then it wouldn't be nearly as big of a problem as it is.
Anyway, I am puzzled this is still going on. The Tau got to have their cake and eat it too, in the form of keeping their OP unit at the cost of slight spam reduction, the injustice!
I would just like to clarify my stance on the commander nerf. You see, I fully understand the need to nerf commanders, and I'm sure tourney players will appreciate the reduction in spam going forward. However, I and many others simply feel that GW could have done more (or something else) to balance commanders internally. Heck, I don't even mind the commander limit, it's just that commanders are still too good next to other units. That is what this thread was about, and many of us therefore decided to voice our opinions on this "fix".
Also, this thread was pretty much done as everything has already been said, and we even went off topic a couple times.
Wolfblade wrote: Hm, ok. Wonder how long ago then. 4th ed tau played very differently from 6th/7th.
I'd consider that a huge boon, 4th edition Tau were way better written and had a clearer direction than fanboy-like inflation of every number, bad balance and OP stuff everywhere they got later. If anything, all the insane, fluff breaking changes should be reverted back to 4th then built up from there, and while Codex doesn't do perfect job in this regard it does have some needed changes.
Well, except most of those changes do nothing to bring back the feel of 4th edition Tau. Our railguns are still poor at the job they're meant to do, we still can't JSJ unless you play a sept that gets bonuses for standing still or play Tau and use up a relic to get the ability on one model, Crisis suits are still too expensive, our plasma is still inferior in every way to imperium plasma for negligible points decrease, Skyray is still crap, markerlights and support systems are still doing the same things and now some of our sept traits and stratagems do those same things, too!
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Wolfblade wrote: Hm, ok. Wonder how long ago then. 4th ed tau played very differently from 6th/7th.
I'd consider that a huge boon, 4th edition Tau were way better written and had a clearer direction than fanboy-like inflation of every number, bad balance and OP stuff everywhere they got later. If anything, all the insane, fluff breaking changes should be reverted back to 4th then built up from there, and while Codex doesn't do perfect job in this regard it does have some needed changes.
Well, except most of those changes do nothing to bring back the feel of 4th edition Tau. Our railguns are still poor at the job they're meant to do, we still can't JSJ unless you play a sept that gets bonuses for standing still or play Tau and use up a relic to get the ability on one model, Crisis suits are still too expensive, our plasma is still inferior in every way to imperium plasma for negligible points decrease, Skyray is still crap, markerlights and support systems are still doing the same things and now some of our sept traits and stratagems do those same things, too!
Statistically, A skyray is a like-for-like tank killer. you blow your entire reserve, but it can kill an equivalent tank like a predator when you get the markerlights on it for the missiles. Still not ideal, but far from the dog turd we saw in the index.
Wolfblade wrote: Hm, ok. Wonder how long ago then. 4th ed tau played very differently from 6th/7th.
I'd consider that a huge boon, 4th edition Tau were way better written and had a clearer direction than fanboy-like inflation of every number, bad balance and OP stuff everywhere they got later. If anything, all the insane, fluff breaking changes should be reverted back to 4th then built up from there, and while Codex doesn't do perfect job in this regard it does have some needed changes.
Well, except most of those changes do nothing to bring back the feel of 4th edition Tau. Our railguns are still poor at the job they're meant to do, we still can't JSJ unless you play a sept that gets bonuses for standing still or play Tau and use up a relic to get the ability on one model, Crisis suits are still too expensive, our plasma is still inferior in every way to imperium plasma for negligible points decrease, Skyray is still crap, markerlights and support systems are still doing the same things and now some of our sept traits and stratagems do those same things, too!
Statistically, A skyray is a like-for-like tank killer. you blow your entire reserve, but it can kill an equivalent tank like a predator when you get the markerlights on it for the missiles. Still not ideal, but far from the dog turd we saw in the index.
The new ones are S8 -2 D6 which even if they all hit will statisticaly not be enough to kill a predator or even a rhino.
As 6 hits will be 4 wounds and with a 5+ save around 9 damage.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/16 10:46:12
Jorim wrote: The new ones are S8 -2 D6 which even if they all hit will statisticaly not be enough to kill a predator or even a rhino.
As 6 hits will be 4 wounds and with a 5+ save around 9 damage.
Average damage of D6 is 3.5 which makes 3 wounding hits 10.5 damage rounded to 11.
Jorim wrote: The new ones are S8 -2 D6 which even if they all hit will statisticaly not be enough to kill a predator or even a rhino.
As 6 hits will be 4 wounds and with a 5+ save around 9 damage.
Average damage of D6 is 3.5 which makes 3 wounding hits 10.5 damage rounded to 11.
But 2/3 times 4 (amount of wounds after saves) isn't 3, so your damage is too high.
It would be 2,66 wounds and less than 10 damage.
Tristanleo wrote: Average damage of D6 is 3.5 which makes 3 wounding hits 10.5 damage rounded to 11.
You're ignoring the save. A 3+ save at a -2 penalty takes the 10.5 damage down to 7. The Sky Ray remains trash.
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.
Jorim wrote: The new ones are S8 -2 D6 which even if they all hit will statisticaly not be enough to kill a predator or even a rhino.
As 6 hits will be 4 wounds and with a 5+ save around 9 damage.
Average damage of D6 is 3.5 which makes 3 wounding hits 10.5 damage rounded to 11.
But 2/3 times 4 (amount of wounds after saves) isn't 3, so your damage is too high.
It would be 2,66 wounds and less than 10 damage.
I know that it doesn't statistically sit perfectly but lets play the game as a set of absolutes where we're working with whole numbers and work from there.
6 missiles fired at BS3+ rerolling 1 is statistically 4.66 hits, rounded to 5 hits.
5 missiles wounding on 3+ is 4.2 wounds, round to 4.
4 missiles against a save of 5+ is statistically 2.66 wounds, round to 3.
3 missiles dealing 1 minimum and 6 maximum damage gives an average of 3.5 wounds per missile, so that's 10.5 wounds which you can round up to 11.
I've rolled it out and the math pretty much checks out.
That's not how probability works. You can't round off at each intermediate step.
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.
Peregrine wrote: That's not how probability works. You can't round off at each intermediate step.
Yes, I know that and as I said, it doesn't sit statistically perfect but you can't get 2.66 wounding hits, so how else do you work it out when you're actually applying to the game using it's limits?
Tristanleo wrote: Yes, I know that and as I said, it doesn't sit statistically perfect but you can't get 2.66 wounding hits, so how else do you work it out when you're actually applying to the game using it's limits?
You keep the full decimal numbers at each intermediate step and then optionally round off at the end. That's how probability works. You are dealing with average values carried through steps of multiplication, not discrete events, when calculating the average outcome.
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.
5000pts W4/ D0/ L5
5000pts W10/ D2/ L7
