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.

 RiTides wrote:
I quoted that list in the spoiler tags above, since it just won MechaniCon. I also commented on it after, not in spoilers...

Sorry I should have paid more attention !

 Crazyterran wrote:
So, if I'm reading Highlander right, it nerfs Eldar (Wave Serpents), Guard (No multiples of the same Leman Russ, no multiple Veteran Squads),Tau (Riptides), while buffing things like Centurions (well, no Draigo, but still tigurius/Shield Eternal CM)?

I like the Highlander Idea, and it nerfs a lot of the lame spam in the game, but... eh.

It hampers some of the crazy annoying builds - eg wave serpent spam. It also hampers a lot of decidedly underpowered builds (ratling spam) in the attempt. And it lets some ridiculously powerful builds get by completely unscathed.

Basically it just shows that the real crazyiness isn't caused by spamming units at all, it is caused by particular units, some of which are spammed and some are not.

Unfortunately, but not unexpectedly, people aren't willing to accept adjustments to individual units.

I'd almost prefer just letting people go crazy and seeing what evolves from there.

People also seem loathe to do that. The only 'no holds barred' 7th Ed event I've seen had 8 players, 5 of whom brought 2 Transcendent Ctans.

Trasvi wrote:

People also seem loathe to do that. The only 'no holds barred' 7th Ed event I've seen had 8 players, 5 of whom brought 2 Transcendent Ctans.

You hit the nail on the head, anyone can convert a transcendent c'tan, it would just be transcendent c'tan: the game.

 Crazyterran wrote:
So, if I'm reading Highlander right, it nerfs Eldar (Wave Serpents), Guard (No multiples of the same Leman Russ, no multiple Veteran Squads),Tau (Riptides), while buffing things like Centurions (well, no Draigo, but still tigurius/Shield Eternal CM)?

I like the Highlander Idea, and it nerfs a lot of the lame spam in the game, but... eh.

I'd almost prefer just letting people go crazy and seeing what evolves from there.

It also nerfs, daemons, not FMC spam, weak screamerstar harder to make good summoning lists ( and often puts the 0-1 on summoned units).

Not sure centurions are stronger as they are unlikely to get all the powers they need and will be lacking in psychic dice to cast them.

It is by no means the perfect balancing tool (nothing is), it is just different.

theres no claim that Highlander balances the game.. like Breng77 says its just different. If your tired of playing against spammy lists this might be something you might want to try.

Why not discuss Highlandee in a separate dedicated thread? This one if for the discussion of multi sources.

Highlander is relevant to a multi-source discussion, if the discussion is in general about whether or not there will be a push to open up the source floodgate, why, etc. I don't think that will happen, btw, without something like Highlander in place, at most events.

That's why it's relevant.

In other news, to Ed/Brendan's points, Highlander doesn't balance the game, but it takes the power lists from 11 down to 8, and doesn't do as much to hurt the weaker dexes as a general rule (When implemented correctly), so the game feels more balanced and more diverse without anyone claiming it makes it perfect or what-not. It also is very difficult if not impossible to abuse Highlander with multiple sources, and so is one of the better options for those wishing to go that route.

It should be discussed in a separate thread so it doesn't ecipse the main purpose of this thread IMO. It's not like every tourney to allow multi source will be a Highlander. In fact I can easily see Highlander as a flash in the pan.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Here's a multi source list I recently saw:

Note - it took best overall at an event.


> GK Nemesis Strike Force:
— Librarian w/ Book and Hammer
— Terminator Squad
— 2 Purifier squads
— Dreadknight with Hammer

> Allied Detachment Ultramarines:
— Tigurius
— Sniper Scouts
— 3 Dev Centurions (grav cannons)

> Space Wolves CAD:
— Rune Priest
— 2 Blood Claw squads
— 2 Drop Pods (FA)

> Fortification:
— Imperial Bunker w/ Escape Hatch

Purifiers in the drop pods - with Tiggy for Endurance giving Purifiers with psycannons relentless.
CentStar in the bunker with hatch 12" up field.
Libby and Terminators deepstrike.

Turn 1 Alpha Strike:
- Terminators deep strike
- One Purifier squad pods in and split into combat squads
- CentStar pops out of the hatch, moving 6"

Broken ?

Is it broken? No. But why should we allow 3 or more detachments to allow every player to get access to the "best" possible combinations? You're essentially using the SW codex here just to offset the normal limitations on purifiers (namely mobility) from the GK book. 2 detachments forces people to make tradeoffs. Would this list really suffer significantly if it became a little less efficient by losing the SW detachment and seeing it replaced by a UM CAD? It'd still be highly competitive. The 2 detachment limit is also a good balancing factor on preventing every top tier army from having the 34 point servo skull caddy inquisitor (particularly important with Master of Ambush being a desired warlord trait).

Call me old fashioned but I actually liked that you had to work around weaknesses in your codex in previous editions for the most part. Needed some close combat protection for IG or Tau? You took Kroot or Ogryns as they were your best options despite not being close to the "best" in the game overall. Now, you just take the absolute best unit from where ever instead. I built my armies specifically around playstyles (all around good marines, slow plodding IG with lots of big guns at least in 3rd edition terms, superfast glass cannon eldar, etc). I'm just not a fan of that but I realize that is (along with multiple force orgs and LOW in small games) were the game is going regardless of my feelings which is a large part of why I only play 40k for the past couple of years when I literally can't get in another game.

So, with this Highlander format, you can't take more than 1 of any particular codex entry or more than 1 of each identical codex entry? It sounds like the former (only one wave serpent!) instead of the old space wolf thing where each hg had to have something unique (one wave serpent stock and one with star engine upgrade is ok).

 warboss wrote:
Call me old fashioned but I actually liked that you had to work around weaknesses in your codex in previous editions for the most part. Needed some close combat protection for IG or Tau? You took Kroot or Ogryns as they were your best options despite not being close to the "best" in the game overall. Now, you just take the absolute best unit from where ever instead. I built my armies specifically around playstyles (all around good marines, slow plodding IG with lots of big guns at least in 3rd edition terms, superfast glass cannon eldar, etc). I'm just not a fan of that but I realize that is (along with multiple force orgs and LOW in small games) were the game is going regardless of my feelings which is a large part of why I only play 40k for the past couple of years when I literally can't get in another game.

So, with this Highlander format, you can't take more than 1 of any particular codex entry or more than 1 of each identical codex entry? It sounds like the former (only one wave serpent!) instead of the old space wolf thing where each hg had to have something unique (one wave serpent stock and one with star engine upgrade is ok).

Yeah basically you can duplicate Troops (not Dedicated Transports) once you've taken all possible Troops once, up to 3 times total. So you could have 3 x tac squads and 2 x scout squads.

But otherwise it's one of everything. Plus all the BB codices turn into AoC, so you can't stack inquisitors/psykers/etc. into things like blobs or centstars. This severely limits things like getting multiple key powers on a centstar and other things. Also, SCs and other units count as their "normal" version (i.e., Tiggy = a Libby, so you can't have one of each).

Agreed in general with the old fashioned thing ... really don't like the idea of people cherry picking from as many sources as possible, especially since there was 0 balancing involved in that decision from a GW perspective.

It does sound interesting although one problem that comes to mind is the previously arbitrary decision to make separate codex entries for certain vehicles while others get one entry with swaps. An example would be stock LRC and LRR compared with two wave serpents with completely different weapons. The former that are technically more similar yet legal but the latter are more different but illegal. I fully realize that subjective "better" is not the enemy of "perfect" but that wrinkle does come to mind.

It seems like hobby event theme is springing back up in contrast to what was a very competitive tournamebt theme. To me the less restrictions the better.

PanzerLeader wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Here's a multi source list I recently saw:

Note - it took best overall at an event.


> GK Nemesis Strike Force:
— Librarian w/ Book and Hammer
— Terminator Squad
— 2 Purifier squads
— Dreadknight with Hammer

> Allied Detachment Ultramarines:
— Tigurius
— Sniper Scouts
— 3 Dev Centurions (grav cannons)

> Space Wolves CAD:
— Rune Priest
— 2 Blood Claw squads
— 2 Drop Pods (FA)

> Fortification:
— Imperial Bunker w/ Escape Hatch

Purifiers in the drop pods - with Tiggy for Endurance giving Purifiers with psycannons relentless.
CentStar in the bunker with hatch 12" up field.
Libby and Terminators deepstrike.

Turn 1 Alpha Strike:
- Terminators deep strike
- One Purifier squad pods in and split into combat squads
- CentStar pops out of the hatch, moving 6"

Broken ?

Is it broken? No. But why should we allow 3 or more detachments to allow every player to get access to the "best" possible combinations? You're essentially using the SW codex here just to offset the normal limitations on purifiers (namely mobility) from the GK book. 2 detachments forces people to make tradeoffs. Would this list really suffer significantly if it became a little less efficient by losing the SW detachment and seeing it replaced by a UM CAD? It'd still be highly competitive. The 2 detachment limit is also a good balancing factor on preventing every top tier army from having the 34 point servo skull caddy inquisitor (particularly important with Master of Ambush being a desired warlord trait).

I never even thought of a Bunker w/ Hatch to put my Centstar in! I was just using the Liber Heresius on my Servo Skull caddy... and I was thinking of dropping the Liber, since I was usually in range of something turn 1 - 2 >.>

 Dozer Blades wrote:
It seems like hobby event theme is springing back up in contrast to what was a very competitive tournamebt theme. To me the less restrictions the better.

Not trying to nitpick with you, but this comment is sorta pointless in the context of the thread. Tournament format and organizational approach has a lot more to do with how "competitive" an event is than army legalization in the current edition does.

Until the end of 6th Edition, really, while GW still had at least some structure in terms of what constituted a Legal Army in the game, there was a valid argument to be made for that published structure being the one within which you should work. The current version of 40k (7th) does not have any formal army creation rules; instead, they're "more like guidelines." As a result, a game that is even now still really built along the old FOC lines (the new codices are basically done up just like the old ones, it's not as if they're any different in structure; they've merely also added formations and lords) is not in any way calibrated along a fixed balance point. Nobody knows what it is, not even GW.

Suggesting that removing restrictions will make things more competitive is devoid of any real logic. The Wild West was not competitive ... the biggest cheaters and backstabbers tended to win far more often than a man trying to have a face to face gunfight at 20 paces and high noon (ref: death of Wild Bill). So did the guys with the biggest guns and the most buddies.

The most "competitive" 40K event you could possibly have would be one with a fixed single list played by all attendees on identically terrained tables with missions calibrated to the mirror match.
The further you go from there, the less competitive (by definition) the event becomes.

So, the less restricted 40K is, the less competitive it becomes, and the more subject to matchup randomization it becomes.

The more sources you have, the more options you have, the less competitive the game gets.

Unless you espouse the rule of Hope. Hoping the game will just magically become balanced if you let everything in without restriction and numberless sources and even Unbound army creation ... well, good luck.

I don't see it that way at all. Take a look at what Mechanicon did and how well it's being received. It was very much an unrestricted event from what I read - several sources.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I don't see it that way at all. Take a look at what Mechanicon did and how well it's being received. It was very much an unrestricted event from what I read - several sources.

Smaller crowd-base than the 100+'ers, long-standing crowd in attendance that's well aware of how much they discourage overpowered list builds (i.e., a single tranny c'tan would have threatened to obliterate the winning list, with freedom to hide from the 3 dev cent grav alpha and then go hog wild), and (like NOVA and some others) very heavy soft scoring.

Not only is it the wrong event to exhibit, there are larger examples also using wide-open army construction that directly contradict the result (i.e., NOVA Narrative). Not that there's a lot of datasets to go on if you really want to try and leverage that as a signpost.

This goes back to my point - tournament format is the key, and Mechanicon does an excellent job of prepping its attendees for the specific environment and list style they desire and expect.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I don't see it that way at all. Take a look at what Mechanicon did and how well it's being received. It was very much an unrestricted event from what I read - several sources.

The problem is that you're equating player choice as encompassing the entirety of "competitiveness" which isn't true. What MVBrandt is trying to say is that opening up the army building to more decreases the actual effect of the player during the game because more of the game is "won" before the players even meet. Now there is plenty of merit to including army building into the category of player skill (better players will generally build more efficient armies) but the effect is front loaded the more "options" you give each player. If you have a single source, you are forced to generally work around some restrictions and pitfalls. If you add in a second, you start to ignore some. If you open it up to everything like is the STANDARD in 7th edition 40k, you effectively get to cover all the bases. You can take the best of not only both worlds but the entire solar system (including the Dataslate: Totally not a Planet Pluto).

If your definition of competition is determined by what happens within the duration of the game, opening up the army building lessens the effect of what you do during the game. In effect, you're front loading your win. I personally think a single FOC (or CAD is I guess what it is called this edition) at normal play levels (<2500pts) is a good mix. I'm not completely opposed to two sources (like adding in a sublist book OR an ally force... not both) but three is for me not the game that got me playing so many years ago.

The army posted above with SW, GK, and UM ends up resembling more the "battles" I'd put together with my Ninja Turtles, Thundercats, and Autobots joining forces when I was a kid rather than anything I'd consider a balanced and fun wargame. That is of course an opinion so YMMV. There is no right answer to this but rather a spectrum of preferences.

 warboss wrote:
The problem is that you're equating player choice as encompassing the entirety of "competitiveness" which isn't true. What MVBrandt is trying to say is that opening up the army building to more decreases the actual effect of the player during the game because more of the game is "won" before the players even meet. Now there is plenty of merit to including army building into the category of player skill (better players will generally build more efficient armies) but the effect is front loaded the more "options" you give each player. If you have a single source, you are forced to generally work around some restrictions and pitfalls. If you add in a second, you start to ignore some. If you open it up to everything like is the STANDARD in 7th edition 40k, you effectively get to cover all the bases. You can take the best of not only both worlds but the entire solar system (including the Dataslate: Totally not a Planet Pluto).

If your definition of competition is determined by what happens within the duration of the game, opening up the army building lessens the effect of what you do during the game. In effect, you're front loading your win. I personally think a single FOC (or CAD is I guess what it is called this edition) at normal play levels (<2500pts) is a good mix. I'm not completely opposed to two sources (like adding in a sublist book OR an ally force... not both) but three is for me not the game that got me playing so many years ago.

The army posted above with SW, GK, and UM ends up resembling more the "battles" I'd put together with my Ninja Turtles, Thundercats, and Autobots joining forces when I was a kid rather than anything I'd consider a balanced and fun wargame. That is of course an opinion so YMMV. There is no right answer to this but rather a spectrum of preferences.

This.

As far as those preferences go, the thing I've noticed in running events for 7th so far, and the thing I've noticed in discussion (and this is just my opinion formed from those observances) is that more casual or narrative gamers want less crazy powerful stuff (and want more engagement and even-ish forces taking big swings at each other and having fun games), and more competitive players tend to want more fair / competitive games (so, again, less "My C'Tran one-shot an entire 2,000 point army by himself! (which happened numerous times in the NOVA Trios and Narrative events) and less "My opponent has the best selections from 4 different codices").

As Warboss points out, however, everyone's preferences are different and your mileage may vary. But, in answer to the OP, I see more sources NOT becoming the standard ... because I haven't seen a strong desire for that reflected in the player base. Furthermore, I see things like Highlander being pushed for MORE when events DO allow more sources.

You'll hear the same people time and again "just want to play 7th" and when you ask them about army composition "well no, not unbound, that would be too much" like it's somehow that different than unlimited sources. (it's the unfortunate joke to all of this, we all want to play some modification of 7th, just some are more in denial than others)

What people are saying "I want to use my crazy powerful thing/stuff" and what they'll say after the event "don't let those guys use that crazy powerful thing, but somehow don't apply that logic to me, because narrative".

2 sources in my books is already insane when you factor in just how much spamming one can do, really the only limit is the point level of the event and that tempers it somewhat. I'm all for a single source, and possibly highlander on top of that.

We want games that go back and forth, not games lost from the matchup alone.



If you want an event with 3 sources or unlimited sources, well, run one

I could be okay playing against unbound lists as opposed to rocking chair hammer. Just saying.

It's always fun to preach to the choir though for sure.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
It seems like hobby event theme is springing back up in contrast to what was a very competitive tournamebt theme. To me the less restrictions the better.

Despite the fact that I think this comment is trying to rankle people, it's actually quite relevant. Why are things shifting back towards more restrictions, when the trend (ESPECIALLY towards the end of 5th edition, but also in 6th edition) was to have no restrictions? This is obvious - the rules no longer work as well without restrictions. This is (in my opinion) why you had a lot more theme-scoring and the like back in 3rd edition. I played then, although I was pretty young, and remember some of the insanity that was possible. I skipped 4th, but by the time I got back into the game in 5th, things had changed drastically to unrestricted formats because the ruleset allowed it to.

As another poster said above, no one can even agree on what "playing 7th edition" would be. You say unrestricted, and now you say maybe you'd consider unbound, but you know that that is never going to catch on. People draw the line somewhere, and at that point it's just a sandbox, not a ruleset worthy of tournament play.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I don't see it that way at all. Take a look at what Mechanicon did and how well it's being received. It was very much an unrestricted event from what I read - several sources.

As someone who actually attended MechaniCon, and originally was signed up for the 40k GT, I backed out of the GT partially because of the rules. Come to find out having attended (for X-wing, etc) it seemed like it went off pretty well, but as MVBrandt says that's only because the players were mostly self-policing, and did not take what they could have legally under the format. It was a relaxed, chill, fun time from what I could tell... but you apply that same ruleset to the AdeptiCon championships, and you'd see Tranny C'tans everywhere. How can you point to this as a representative sample when one player commented that there was not a single eldar army at the event? See below:

 Iechine wrote:
For an event that was 1850 Dual CAD, it seemed to be highly self regulated: There were hardly any of the traditional net lists. The mind blowing thing? No eldar. I dont mean they were scarce, I mean there was not a single Eldar presence at all.

He went on to say how great an event it was, but you can see the key line above (which I have highlighted): self-regulated. MechaniCon worked, because a bunch of guys came out to have fun and play some crazy 40k. But if not a single eldar army came (I'll have to double-check that that's true), that in itself illustrates that it no-way-in-hell has somehow proven that unrestricted 7th edition "works" for tournaments. The turnout was also not that high for the 40k GT - it looks like in 2013, 48 signed up and 45 participated, and in 2014, 36 participated. It looks like the fantasy tourney actually had more players than the 40k event! (40 of them - see the results at the bottom of this page).

I think it was an awesome event, but that's because the guys running it are awesome, and so were the people there. There was a judge who was absolutely hilarious who kept wandering by the side-event tables and doing count-downs and such. Tony, the overall organizer, was great. And most of all, the players came in, were mostly self-regulated, and had a great time. But at a lot of other events (small ones at a store without self-policing, or large events drawing in a more diverse crowd from different metas) I don't personally think the format would work.

So bottom line, what I'm saying is, there isn't going to be "one format" for 7th edition. Highlander could be posited as just the opposite of Unbound. Both might be somewhat extreme, and most events will likely end up somewhere in the middle. But the idea of making less and less restrictions is not what a lot of players want from what I've seen so far, and thus a lot of events will cater to those players and not only offer Unbound events or the like, but more restricted ones, too. There can be a place for both types of events, especially in this "sandbox edition" of 40k.

I think it's time to revisit Mike's post from last year:

http://whiskey40k.blogspot.com/2013/10/army-lists-and-re-blog-competitive-vs.html

Because he and DB/BBF are talking past each other over the meaning of competitive. DB thinks an event can't be competitive if the hardest of the hard lists possible in 7th edition are prohibited because of a limitation on sources. That's why anything short of 'ard boyz on steroids is "rocking chair hammer."

Mike, on the other hand, is concerned about having competitive games in which the outcome is not predetermined by brazenness in list building. He wants Super Bowl XLVII (34-31) not Super Bowl XLVIII (43-8).

so far every Tournament ive seen that has run non restricted 7th edition is already admitted there will be changes for next year.

Actually I would like to see the option to run multiple CAD (not same faction) to be able to create more interesting lists - sure it will be competitive but not for that sake alone.

Let me just say that this has been a really informative thread, thanks.

I have been an advocate of restrictive formats for quite some time. I am all for forging the narrative, but for real, rather than ironically. The expression has become a sarcastic rallying cry for people suffering from GW's money first approach to game design. Highlander eliminates spam, which is FAR more off putting to me than deathstarhammer, though its does curb this too with the BB to AoC restriction. It redresses the gap between tier one and tier awful armies. With finite resources, Highlander seemingly encourages smart play and tactical thinking rather than "how can I exploit the games weak rule set in combination with maxing the most poorly balanced units. It might just be a step in the right direction.

I do not think there will be a standard for 40K tournaments. We have gamers and TOs who want different things. We can continue to search for a cure, or realize that there isn't one and enjoy the game for what it is - an open source starting point for bringing players together.

We have a game that was made as an RPG with models get turned into a pseudo-sport. The newest rule set reigns in more of the competitive aspects (according to some) and it has backlash.

The best path I see forward is in experimenting how to bring players back to the game. This starts on the local level - at a club house or game store. Actually getting players involved and seeing how they like the new edition and then develop a format that they will enjoy.

Competitive Gaming:

- 'Ard Boyz was the beginning, in my opinion, of what competitive gaming is for WH40K. Grand Tournaments were never about large prize hauls, were all encompassing hobby events, and were a way to get together with like minded players. 'Ard Boyz was fun for many players and others said they will never attend anymore - it is not about how well the format is created, instead it is about the variety of players and how one size will not fit all.

- Many Independent events started to theme their events to concentrate on winning games - W/L, brackets, etc.. We now have dozens of groups that offer tactics based blogs/pod-casts/etc. about how to build lists and win games and on the flip side there are plenty of conversion/painting/story driven groups to check out. When the Independent Circuit was created in 2010, the rules for creating your format were simple - each event can do their own take on a tournament. A one-size-fits-all was never part of any discussion.

- Players push for tweaks to the formats to help their play style or to balance as well as TO's doing the same and trying to show you why you should buy tickets to their events. There is a very big push to limit players but there are few attempts that will actually help everyone. Highlander will hurt most armies because the game wasn't created to impose those limits across the board. Limiting sources has a similar effect - some single books are just much more powerful than others. Changing the core rules right off the bat didn't seem to help either.

In the current era of 7th edition, events that are money makers are desperately searching for ways to keep attendance up. Under-staffed and overcrowded, many of the largest events have driven players away regardless of the format. TO's have abused their relationships with local clubs, retailers and manufacturers and made it hard for everyone else to succeed. Many events have been toxic to the game and players, and this started years ago with 'Ard Boyz - while many may enjoy the format it was not good overall. The damage that has been done to the gaming community will be hard to repair.

Well said.

 Tironum wrote:
In the current era of 7th edition, events that are money makers are desperately searching for ways to keep attendance up. Under-staffed and overcrowded, many of the largest events have driven players away regardless of the format. TO's have abused their relationships with local clubs, retailers and manufacturers and made it hard for everyone else to succeed. Many events have been toxic to the game and players, and this started years ago with 'Ard Boyz - while many may enjoy the format it was not good overall. The damage that has been done to the gaming community will be hard to repair.

Where is this coming from? It just seems out of left field. I haven't seen any large events (the ones run by Frontline, Nova, in a few weeks AdeptiCon, and I'm sure there are a number of others) have trouble selling out. In fact, I'm pretty darn sure AdeptiCon will be selling out in under an hour, just like last year...

So yeah, not sure what you're mixing together here, but it isn't supported by facts (imo). I was at MechaniCon, and it was awesome, and I was at AdeptiCon, and it was awesome... and neither seemed under-staffed, overcrowded, to have driven away players, or to have absued their relationship with local clubs/retailers/manufacturers. So, maybe you're thinking of something specific, but thankfully what you post isn't the case... for the event you're connected with, or for most others. At least, from what I have seen!

Again with the sniping at other events...mechanicon, seems to have been a fun event, with nothing but good press, but also seems like the only one with organizers taking public shots at how other people are doing things. On one hand you say that there will be no one format (I agree) and then go on to run down 2 other formats that you don't run as being bad for the game. So is the message, people will run all sorts of events, but unless you run one like us you are hurting the hobby? Also attendance thus far has suggested players want a limited environment, with many less restricted events having lower attendance than in the past. It feel like there is a place for any type of event the community wants to run, but no place for events running each other down.