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.
Would it be polite to ask... why?
"I can tailor for you."
"Yeah but so can I."
"oh... uh. Huh."
I feel League (and most computer games) worked a bit like 7th edition. Ynnari gets banned for being broken. Eldar/Tau/Marines/Knights/Magnus and friends can all take a game off each other and win a tournament. Because there's not a huge investment, no one plays DE/Guard/Orks/CSM/Tyranids etc up to say Necrons (which crush the others but can't hack it versus the tier above) unless they are memeing, in which case they don't care about the results.
So its balanced - while still being awful.
Anyway on to our Ad Mech overlords. So of wish I'd picked them instead of Tau as my lockdown project.
BroodSpawn wrote: Is this discussion about making 3 bans to affect what people can play or put into lists?
Because that has got to the stupidest suggestion Dakka has ever come up with. And that's saying a lot.
I dunno.
I'm tempted to just do that as it seems like another fun way play the game in a way that'll likely be the anti-meta game.
plays against orks, bans boyz, and buggies.
Cool, as an ork player I can definitely build an army still...and probably still have fun as my opponent would have banned units as well.
The issue is that banning units in say, harlequins, is far far more influential than banning things in marines.
"Us Blood Axes hav lernt' a lot from da humies. How best ta kill 'em, fer example."
— Korporal Snagbrat of the Dreadblade Kommandos
In magic you have to build an arranged deck. You also get a side board which you can add to you deck in exchange for other cards in your deck for situational opponents. It would help 40k a lot IMO.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
It's an experiment worth trying. Would be interested to hear how it went.
BlaxicanX wrote: A young business man named Tom Kirby, who was a pupil of mine until he turned greedy, helped the capitalists hunt down and destroy the wargamers. He betrayed and murdered Games Workshop.
Side boards are a nice idea, but its not really equivilent with a CCG.
You can sideboard 10 cards which is usually 25-10% of your deck depending on comp.
With 40k having point values you get some really swingy sideboarding of 250-500pts which can litterally be anywhere from 80 infantry models to 1 super heavy.
Also not many armies have good options for sideboarding. Marines do since they have 60+ units, but armies like harlequins have almost no reason to take a sideboard.
JOIN MY CRUSADE and gain 4000 RT points!
http://www.eternalcrusade.com/account/sign-up/?ref_code=EC-PLCIKYCABW8PG
In magic you have to build an arranged deck. You also get a side board which you can add to you deck in exchange for other cards in your deck for situational opponents. It would help 40k a lot IMO.
I see now.
Only way I can see that works is if you cap the sideboard to "x" points. (I wouldn't go more than 500 pts, and even them probably go lower so that you're not swapping LOWs or such.)
Then, you can swap out models with sideboard pieces. The problem I can see here, is that you may have to sacrifice some units you'd like to keep for any of your sideboard unit, and even then it's likely won't be a point-for-point swap... leading to a sub-2000 pt list than you started with. That's the trade-off, I guess.
BroodSpawn wrote: Is this discussion about making 3 bans to affect what people can play or put into lists?
Because that has got to the stupidest suggestion Dakka has ever come up with. And that's saying a lot.
I dunno.
I'm tempted to just do that as it seems like another fun way play the game in a way that'll likely be the anti-meta game.
plays against orks, bans boyz, and buggies.
Cool, as an ork player I can definitely build an army still...and probably still have fun as my opponent would have banned units as well.
The issue is that banning units in say, harlequins, is far far more influential than banning things in marines.
Yeah, under such system, I'd have exceptions carved out for Armies having low number of units like the 'quins. (or, stipulate that 'quin troops cannot be banned).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/27 18:43:19
Any of the balancing tools like pick/bans and sideboarding that work in other games die the moment they come into contact with the Adeptus Astartes, basically. One choice a player can make having several times the options that another player can make is just not something that happens outside of tabletop games with releases dictated by model sales.
VladimirHerzog wrote: Demon summoning is supposed to be a sideboard but its rules are so botched that it doesnt function.
fixing these rules and giving them to more factions would make it interesting
*waves* Demon player too...
Restricting demon summoning to available reinforcement points is what really broke it.
Without paying the cost, current summoning rules works sorta okay, and is quite powerful in 9th ed missions.
But no one likes their opponents getting "free" units via summoning. If they ever go back to not costing reinforcement points, I'd make the summoning test much harder.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/27 18:48:31
Eihnlazer wrote: Side boards are a nice idea, but its not really equivilent with a CCG.
You can sideboard 10 cards which is usually 25-10% of your deck depending on comp.
With 40k having point values you get some really swingy sideboarding of 250-500pts which can litterally be anywhere from 80 infantry models to 1 super heavy.
Also not many armies have good options for sideboarding. Marines do since they have 60+ units, but armies like harlequins have almost no reason to take a sideboard.
It could simply be arming your quinsy with carress vs kisses. Taking haywire vs SC for quins.
Every army would benifit from it. Some more than others ofc but it would mostly punish armies for taking skew list.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Arachnofiend wrote: Any of the balancing tools like pick/bans and sideboarding that work in other games die the moment they come into contact with the Adeptus Astartes, basically. One choice a player can make having several times the options that another player can make is just not something that happens outside of tabletop games with releases dictated by model sales.
The strength of the Astarte's is supposed to be their versatility and ability to customize. It would be cool to actually use abilities like that. However - most armies have more options than they can put in a list and lots of options which are more situational. Because some armies don't have the ability to customize...I don't see that as being a valid reason to prevent such a good tool like having a side board from dealing with gimmicky stat lines.
Raiders for example get rocket by autocannons but autocannons are pretty damn bad against most things so you can't take them.
IMO the reason competitive play sucks so much is the game designers don't understand how "tournaments" really work. You build a TAC list not a list specifically designed to roast your opponent. I am pretty sure that is how they playtest things...or they just take random choices in their games or something nonsensical.
You are right in a way. If I know I am playing against DE and I could counter build against them with Space marines...it would be such an unfair battle. If the marines could only counter with 1/4 of their army though...I think it would tip the scales to balanced.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/27 19:18:56
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Didn't read the thread, don't play Drukhari. Just came here to say, given what Drukhari players have had to deal with .... I'm ok with them being OP for a while. I normally don't think like that but there are a few factions where, codex, after codex, you just look at the release and go "C'moooooon! That's it?! Those poor poor bastards ..." I feel like I'm fine with them being OP for a bit before they get brought back in line.
Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug
Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..."
Amishprn86 wrote: Just b.c they do play multiple games swapping first that doesn't take away the advantage of first turn its just giving each player that advantage. In 40k we don't have the ability to play multiple games with the same person for events.
We do, but that would probably make tournaments take at least a month if they were only played on weekends. On day one you'd play your first-round opponent in a best of 3. Day two you'd play round two in the same fashion. Next weekend you play round three the same way. Past round three the tournament auto drops anybody who's x-2 or worse keeping the highest objective scores around as bracket filler if required. Round 4 is played on the third weekend with best of five matches as is the final round of a 5 round event.
Amishprn86 wrote: The point is for a game that is suppose to be balanced there is still a 55% advantage, how on earth do you think 40k with literally thousands more variables is going to be a perfect 50/50. My point is its impossible and a 55% win rate is perfectly fine.
When you filter by win-rate at all skill levels league has a spread between 52.76% at the top and 43.82% at the bottom. The champions at the bottom are often there due to issues in professional play where the heightened levels of skill and team coordination can break something that would be balanced even at the challenger level. This is with 155 champions with 10 picked and 10 banned each game. I expect that if GW went hard on mathematical testing and data collection tey could reach a similar level of balance.
if going into a 40k game I could ban three units from my opponent's army and we constructed our lists one unit at a time based on a theoretically infinite roster of all possible units, winrates would be a lot closer to 50% there too. If every pro LoL event the teams had to lock in a team comp and play with that in every game of the event the winrate spread would be a lot worse.
How would that be equal? Armies like Knights are crushed, armies with 1 troop are messed over, etc... this is not balanced at all..... or heck Harlequins Ban Troupes and both HQ's and now they are literally unplayable.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/28 01:46:53
But I do believe that the idea of sideboards have some merit, a set amount of points in optional units to help against skew lists.
Yes Bans can't work.
#1 reason - your opponent has limited models or unit selections. You could ban them from fielding an eligible lists.
Side boards can work but there is a question for how they should be implemented.
Would it have to be straight forward - remove this unit - replace with this unit?
Or could the sideboard be upgrades and options spread out over multiple units up to a certain point level?
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
But I do believe that the idea of sideboards have some merit, a set amount of points in optional units to help against skew lists.
Yes Bans can't work.
#1 reason - your opponent has limited models or unit selections. You could ban them from fielding an eligible lists.
Side boards can work but there is a question for how they should be implemented.
Would it have to be straight forward - remove this unit - replace with this unit?
Or could the sideboard be upgrades and options spread out over multiple units up to a certain point level?
I would probably do it the Warmachine way and allow someone to have 2 full stand alone lists that you can chose per game.
If you really wanne do 'sideboard' I would do a fixed 1500 point section and a 2 different 500 point sections that you can swap between (with the full combined 2k list having to be legal, regardless of which 500 point section is used)
It has to be a full 'this or that' because if you start switching individual pieces of a list on the fly you run way to quick into illegal lists and/or cheating.
Amishprn86 wrote: Just b.c they do play multiple games swapping first that doesn't take away the advantage of first turn its just giving each player that advantage. In 40k we don't have the ability to play multiple games with the same person for events.
We do, but that would probably make tournaments take at least a month if they were only played on weekends. On day one you'd play your first-round opponent in a best of 3. Day two you'd play round two in the same fashion. Next weekend you play round three the same way. Past round three the tournament auto drops anybody who's x-2 or worse keeping the highest objective scores around as bracket filler if required. Round 4 is played on the third weekend with best of five matches as is the final round of a 5 round event.
Amishprn86 wrote: The point is for a game that is suppose to be balanced there is still a 55% advantage, how on earth do you think 40k with literally thousands more variables is going to be a perfect 50/50. My point is its impossible and a 55% win rate is perfectly fine.
When you filter by win-rate at all skill levels league has a spread between 52.76% at the top and 43.82% at the bottom. The champions at the bottom are often there due to issues in professional play where the heightened levels of skill and team coordination can break something that would be balanced even at the challenger level. This is with 155 champions with 10 picked and 10 banned each game. I expect that if GW went hard on mathematical testing and data collection tey could reach a similar level of balance.
if going into a 40k game I could ban three units from my opponent's army and we constructed our lists one unit at a time based on a theoretically infinite roster of all possible units, winrates would be a lot closer to 50% there too. If every pro LoL event the teams had to lock in a team comp and play with that in every game of the event the winrate spread would be a lot worse.
How would that be equal? Armies like Knights are crushed, armies with 1 troop are messed over, etc... this is not balanced at all..... or heck Harlequins Ban Troupes and both HQ's and now they are literally unplayable.
It wouldn't be. I'm pointing out the sheer absurdity of trying to compare League of Legends' balance with Competitive 40k's and trying to come even a little bit close to creating an apples to apples comparison.
League of Legends allows players of both teams in a competition to
1) effectively build their list on the spot, one champion at a time, in response to what their opponents have banned and picked.
2) always play on the exact same map every game
3) play multiple games against the same team in a series, best of 3
4) everyone has access to the exact same units, there are no 'different factions' that players lock themselves into
5) you're allowed to ban out the six most overpowered units, 3 per team, at any given time.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
But I do believe that the idea of sideboards have some merit, a set amount of points in optional units to help against skew lists.
Yes Bans can't work.
#1 reason - your opponent has limited models or unit selections. You could ban them from fielding an eligible lists.
Side boards can work but there is a question for how they should be implemented.
Would it have to be straight forward - remove this unit - replace with this unit?
Or could the sideboard be upgrades and options spread out over multiple units up to a certain point level?
I would probably do it the Warmachine way and allow someone to have 2 full stand alone lists that you can chose per game.
If you really wanne do 'sideboard' I would do a fixed 1500 point section and a 2 different 500 point sections that you can swap between (with the full combined 2k list having to be legal, regardless of which 500 point section is used)
It has to be a full 'this or that' because if you start switching individual pieces of a list on the fly you run way to quick into illegal lists and/or cheating.
so with the sideboard idea...would those "sections" be allowed to share points between them or would they be entirely independent?
I think I like the idea of 2 lists. Instead of a side board. Though I would have a few requirements. I think the core of your "primary detachment" should have to be the same. Hq's and Troops from that detachment can't change. Also You should have to use the same army trait and first warlord trait.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
But I do believe that the idea of sideboards have some merit, a set amount of points in optional units to help against skew lists.
Yes Bans can't work.
#1 reason - your opponent has limited models or unit selections. You could ban them from fielding an eligible lists.
Side boards can work but there is a question for how they should be implemented.
Would it have to be straight forward - remove this unit - replace with this unit?
Or could the sideboard be upgrades and options spread out over multiple units up to a certain point level?
I would probably do it the Warmachine way and allow someone to have 2 full stand alone lists that you can chose per game.
If you really wanne do 'sideboard' I would do a fixed 1500 point section and a 2 different 500 point sections that you can swap between (with the full combined 2k list having to be legal, regardless of which 500 point section is used)
It has to be a full 'this or that' because if you start switching individual pieces of a list on the fly you run way to quick into illegal lists and/or cheating.
so with the sideboard idea...would those "sections" be allowed to share points between them or would they be entirely independent?
I think I like the idea of 2 lists. Instead of a side board. Though I would have a few requirements. I think the core of your "primary detachment" should have to be the same. Hq's and Troops from that detachment can't change. Also You should have to use the same army trait and first warlord trait.
The way I would do it personally is dictate that you get to have 500 points, or some value of points, that you can swap to create 2 different legal lists. So the 500 points could fit into the same detachments, or could require a different detachment structure (and therefore 2 different CP totals). You get to see all of your opponent's models, i.e. both of their possible side-boards, then while choosing secondary objectives you decide "i am running list A" or "I am running list B."
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
But I do believe that the idea of sideboards have some merit, a set amount of points in optional units to help against skew lists.
Yes Bans can't work.
#1 reason - your opponent has limited models or unit selections. You could ban them from fielding an eligible lists.
Side boards can work but there is a question for how they should be implemented.
Would it have to be straight forward - remove this unit - replace with this unit?
Or could the sideboard be upgrades and options spread out over multiple units up to a certain point level?
I would probably do it the Warmachine way and allow someone to have 2 full stand alone lists that you can chose per game.
If you really wanne do 'sideboard' I would do a fixed 1500 point section and a 2 different 500 point sections that you can swap between (with the full combined 2k list having to be legal, regardless of which 500 point section is used)
It has to be a full 'this or that' because if you start switching individual pieces of a list on the fly you run way to quick into illegal lists and/or cheating.
so with the sideboard idea...would those "sections" be allowed to share points between them or would they be entirely independent?
I think I like the idea of 2 lists. Instead of a side board. Though I would have a few requirements. I think the core of your "primary detachment" should have to be the same. Hq's and Troops from that detachment can't change. Also You should have to use the same army trait and first warlord trait.
The way I would do it personally is dictate that you get to have 500 points, or some value of points, that you can swap to create 2 different legal lists. So the 500 points could fit into the same detachments, or could require a different detachment structure (and therefore 2 different CP totals). You get to see all of your opponent's models, i.e. both of their possible side-boards, then while choosing secondary objectives you decide "i am running list A" or "I am running list B."
Yep - I like that. I'd be happy if that became the norm.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
But I do believe that the idea of sideboards have some merit, a set amount of points in optional units to help against skew lists.
Yes Bans can't work.
#1 reason - your opponent has limited models or unit selections. You could ban them from fielding an eligible lists.
Side boards can work but there is a question for how they should be implemented.
Would it have to be straight forward - remove this unit - replace with this unit?
Or could the sideboard be upgrades and options spread out over multiple units up to a certain point level?
I would probably do it the Warmachine way and allow someone to have 2 full stand alone lists that you can chose per game.
If you really wanne do 'sideboard' I would do a fixed 1500 point section and a 2 different 500 point sections that you can swap between (with the full combined 2k list having to be legal, regardless of which 500 point section is used)
It has to be a full 'this or that' because if you start switching individual pieces of a list on the fly you run way to quick into illegal lists and/or cheating.
so with the sideboard idea...would those "sections" be allowed to share points between them or would they be entirely independent?
I think I like the idea of 2 lists. Instead of a side board. Though I would have a few requirements. I think the core of your "primary detachment" should have to be the same. Hq's and Troops from that detachment can't change. Also You should have to use the same army trait and first warlord trait.
The way I would do it personally is dictate that you get to have 500 points, or some value of points, that you can swap to create 2 different legal lists. So the 500 points could fit into the same detachments, or could require a different detachment structure (and therefore 2 different CP totals). You get to see all of your opponent's models, i.e. both of their possible side-boards, then while choosing secondary objectives you decide "i am running list A" or "I am running list B."
Yep - I like that. I'd be happy if that became the norm.
Especially with two different setups of warlord traits, stratagems and relics, I think that's a fun concept.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
the_scotsman wrote: It wouldn't be. I'm pointing out the sheer absurdity of trying to compare League of Legends' balance with Competitive 40k's and trying to come even a little bit close to creating an apples to apples comparison.
League of Legends allows players of both teams in a competition to
1) effectively build their list on the spot, one champion at a time, in response to what their opponents have banned and picked.
Not in Blind Pick, or ARAM, or ARURF, or One-for-All...
2) always play on the exact same map every game
The impact of dragons on the map disagrees with this.
3) play multiple games against the same team in a series, best of 3
In most regions that only happens in playoffs. Even pro games these days tend to be one and done or at most two-game sets.
4) everyone has access to the exact same units, there are no 'different factions' that players lock themselves into
Untrue. Most players lock themselves into a role and have a fairly shallow champion pool.
5) you're allowed to ban out the six most overpowered units, 3 per team, at any given time.
The cap has been 10 in alternating phases for years now. Try to understand the game before speaking about it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/28 18:39:42
Yep - I like that. I'd be happy if that became the norm.
It is only something good for veterans with large collections. For new players this is just another barrier of entry, if an optimised army requires an extra 500pts investment. And this before any problems GW would create with it, because some armies probably could get a different build with 500pts, while others are locked in to 1800pts of stuff that can't change or it can change, but then they need 1000+pts of side board. And God help us if the game was balanced around the side board thing. You don't have one or your army doesn't have one , but your opponents army does? You can now enjoy a game where your opponent tailored to your army, after he saw the models you have with you.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
the_scotsman wrote: It wouldn't be. I'm pointing out the sheer absurdity of trying to compare League of Legends' balance with Competitive 40k's and trying to come even a little bit close to creating an apples to apples comparison.
League of Legends allows players of both teams in a competition to
1) effectively build their list on the spot, one champion at a time, in response to what their opponents have banned and picked.
Not in Blind Pick, or ARAM, or ARURF, or One-for-All...
Why are you bringing up fun (as in "intentionally non competitive") game modes to this discussion about competitive gaming? You can't even play them ranked.
2) always play on the exact same map every game
The impact of dragons on the map disagrees with this.
It is still the same map with a pool of 4 (imho small) adjustments from which 2-4 can happen during the game. Hardly comparable to the practically infinite amount of table variety 40k is being played on. Calling it a different map f.e. because some additional bushes spawn with the Ocean Drake is weird take to be honest. Is a SC2 map a new map because one player decides to destroy a path blocking rubble?
3) play multiple games against the same team in a series, best of 3
In most regions that only happens in playoffs. Even pro games these days tend to be one and done or at most two-game sets.
Seasonal games? Sure. Tournament games? Nuh uh. 2 Games during group phase, then best of 3 and finally best of 5.
4) everyone has access to the exact same units, there are no 'different factions' that players lock themselves into
Untrue. Most players lock themselves into a role and have a fairly shallow champion pool.
What you write does not make scotsman's point untrue. A role is really not the same as a faction. Trying to give this impression to "outsiders" is arguing in bad faith. And yeah, most people don't play all 130+(?) champions equally well. But nothing apart from a ban (or somebody else already picking them) is stopping me from playing a specific champion. Not at all comparable to the original argument. An example of it would be: "If you play Chaos Space Marines, you can't pick Eradicators in a competitive game".
Even if you pick a role like Jungle, you still could take every champ there. Only what makes sense in the current Meta is stopping you from actually doing it.
a_typical_hero wrote: Why are you bringing up fun (as in "intentionally non competitive") game modes to this discussion about competitive gaming? You can't even play them ranked.
Yes, but Riot still makes balance patches for ARAM and bans certain picks from URF so they're still useful parts of the discussion on balance.
It is still the same map with a pool of 4 (imho small) adjustments from which 2-4 can happen during the game. Hardly comparable to the practically infinite amount of table variety 40k is being played on. Calling it a different map f.e. because some additional bushes spawn with the Ocean Drake is weird take to be honest. Is a SC2 map a new map because one player decides to destroy a path blocking rubble?
The way you play a Baron or Drake fight after the rift change can heavily impact a game. A poke comp getting Ocean soul versus Cloud can easily shape how the rest of the game plays out.
It's not as extreme as 40k but it does matter and makes a large impact at the pro level where.
Seasonal games? Sure. Tournament games? Nuh uh. 2 Games during group phase,
The group stage is a round-robin and the extra games are played on different days. This isn't like a series where you might play five games on the same day and you know it.
What you write does not make scotsman's point untrue. A role is really not the same as a faction.
Nobody is making you play garage hammer with only the exact models you have. Proxy things, swap armies, play on TTS and test out a faction that plays the opposite style of what you normally play.
You're exactly as locked in as you think you are.
Trying to give this impression to "outsiders" is arguing in bad faith. And yeah, most people don't play all 130+(?) champions equally well. But nothing apart from a ban (or somebody else already picking them) is stopping me from playing a specific champion.
155. Plus, you shouldn't solo your only champion into bad lanes. If you're not smurfing on that one champ and you pick it into a counter match up you're screwing your team over.
Not at all comparable to the original argument. An example of it would be: "If you play Chaos Space Marines, you can't pick Eradicators in a competitive game".
Even if you pick a role like Jungle, you still could take every champ there. Only what makes sense in the current Meta is stopping you from actually doing it.
That and if you don't know a champ you're not going to clear effectively on it and your ganks aren't going to be nearly as crisp as they would be if you played something from your usual champ pool. When the meta shifts and somebody's main isn't 'good' any more people start to whine as loudly as people on here do when every GW releases litterally anything.
15k+
Emperor's Spears 2500
Beastmen 10k
What you write does not make scotsman's point untrue. A role is really not the same as a faction. Trying to give this impression to "outsiders" is arguing in bad faith. And yeah, most people don't play all 130+(?) champions equally well. But nothing apart from a ban (or somebody else already picking them) is stopping me from playing a specific champion. Not at all comparable to the original argument. An example of it would be: "If you play Chaos Space Marines, you can't pick Eradicators in a competitive game".
Eldar 
Imperial Guard 
Space Marines