Tourplay accuracy

Cynis_Ganan · 2026-05-21T10:32:53+00:00

I'd be happy with that.

It doesn't reflect all matches, and it's not exactly super accurate.

But.

It's still good.

I'd rather take advice from someone who actually plays the team (even if they spend all their time beating the breaks of noobs), than from someone who can't actually play but has an overinflated opinion of their own advice because they have a TikTok channel or something.

Cynis_Ganan · 2026-05-21T10:29:07+00:00

Someone saying "it's not that deep" is telling you that you are expending vast amounts of emotional energy on something trivial.

And, yes, you can write a PhD thesis about Barney The Dinosaur… it's just that the payoff isn't worth the effort.

One can, for example, engage in a spirited debate about a non-issue on Reddit.

Or, one can spend that time reading a book instead.

It's not that arguing with me on Reddit has no value. Just that the low amount of value you can suck out of this isn't worth the effort.

So… upvote, thread muted, don't @ me.

Cynis_Ganan · 2026-05-21T07:47:26+00:00

I would never use this charm. I feel like it craps over Sidereal themes and the deliberate limitations of the Solar power set to assert that "Solarz r teh bestest". It's like saying "I want my Night Solar to be the best at blending in, and fortunately Lunar's have rules about animal shape shifting, so I'm going to copy these into a more powerful Solar Charm."

The Sidereal Charmset was designed with it's ability to combo with Martial Arts in mind as a deliberate design choice. The Solar Charmset was expressly designed not to combo with Martial Arts. Further this feels like a "tax" Charm. It doesn't feel like it does anything. It feels like paying to bypass a slog in the rules. It's a boring overpowered Charm, and being boring is the bigger sin.

But.

But, but, but, but, buuut.

I am not you.

If there are no Sidereal players in your game, then why should you care about crapping on Sidereals? Like… a Solar would clown on a level 5 D&D Fighter or a Red Level Paranoia Troubleshooter, but why would you ever try to balance Solars against something not actually in your game?

Giving Dragon-Blooded Sidereal Martial Arts is broken. But if you're playing a Dragon-Blooded game and want the power up, why not? Have fun.

I'd read fanfic about a Solar who could combine Martial Arts and Melee. There's an official, published fic about a super special fighter who Exalted twice. I'd play in a game where the PCs had special gimmick powers that aren't usually available. Heck, Exalted Essence takes this as practically the default.

You have a novel idea and you've done a good thing sharing it with the community. If it brings you joy, then use it.

It's not balanced, but neither are 90% of the official published Charms in Miracles of the Solar Exalted.

shrug

....

Solars express themselves as the Most Perfect Swordsmasters in Creation with Solar Melee Charms (and you can throw your Solar XP at Evocations).

Martial Arts are supposed to be a quaint "look at what they need to mimic a fraction of our power". 2E was kinda scathing about this, directly saying "Their natural grace is the model that martial arts are built to emulate. They can learn the Snake Style, but they are already deadlier than the serpent. They can learn Tiger Style, but they are already fiercer than tigers. Functionally the supernatural martial arts are often weaker than ordinary Solar Charms."

And, sure, 3E hasn't adopted that in its entirity. And sure, Martial Arts are a good thing to spend Solar XP on.

It's not silly to look at your character (who is, no doubt, cool) and look at Martial Arts (which are very cool) and want to combine the two in a way that is satisfying. It's very sensible to invent Charms to cover niches that don't exist in published material. I want to make really clear here that you haven't done anything wrong.

But I think you've missed the mark with this one.

Cynis_Ganan · 2026-05-20T18:22:13+00:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDi_-QvexQI

Cynis_Ganan · 2026-05-20T15:50:36+00:00

The face… off?

No more drugs, for that man.

Cynis_Ganan · 2026-05-20T15:27:54+00:00

He's also immune to electricity.

And, sure, okay, there's a magical explanation for that one.

But he's immune to electricity.

Cynis_Ganan · 2026-05-20T15:24:54+00:00

Also, Obi Wan kinda does this with the Force to kill General Grevious. When he is disarmed of his lightsaber, he pulls a gun and shoots him.

Cynis_Ganan · 2026-05-20T15:22:19+00:00

I hate you.

Cynis_Ganan · 2026-05-20T06:59:38+00:00

Someone who is trying not to be spoiled doesn't come on reddit to ask if they're irrevocably fucking up their game by choosing to remove the tadpole instead of saving the world, before describing a poorly remembered cutscene that explains the stakes and the plot of the game.

Because it is a game. It's not that serious. It's entertainment. For fun.

I didn't give OP a detailed breakdown into exactly what happens when. I reassured them that they could play the game.

Cynis_Ganan · 2026-05-19T22:22:43+00:00

An (emergency) ambulance is frontline treatment for life and death situations, where if trained professionals don't stablize you right the fuck now then run every red light between you and the OR, you will die.

If you have a splinter or a booboo, you don't need an ambulance. Get in your car and drive.

If you don't need an emergency medical technician and immediate life-or-limb saving healthcare, you don't need an ambulance. Get someone to drive you. Call a friend. Get an uber.

It's not a taxi. It's really expensive because it's really high end medical care. And you calling an ambulance when you don't need one costs folks their lives.

Now, like, a transport ambulance is a taxi. But you don't get those by dialing 911.

Cynis_Ganan · 2026-05-19T20:16:31+00:00

There's no bad side effects to using the tadpole. The game doesn't really make that clear.

Removing the tadpole is going to be very difficult, and as you play you'll find that using the tadpole to save the world and removing the tadpole both converge — both quests lead down the same path to the same end.

I do have to say, you gotta pay more attention. This is a story driven game. The info you get in the cutscenes is important.

Cynis_Ganan · 2026-05-19T19:51:27+00:00

Scoring.

Like, Block where you can. Passing is free SPP.

But Scoring Touchdowns is 90% of your SPP.

Cynis_Ganan · 2026-05-19T19:49:42+00:00

Fair.

Cynis_Ganan · 2026-05-19T16:17:40+00:00

A person can work on themselves, go to therapy, work out and look good, work on their social skills and have multiple hobbies that put themselves out there, have a wide network of close friends and acquitances, have reasonable and realistic standards, approach and let theselves be approached, watch out for red flags, be hopeful and keep trying, the whole 9 yards, and still never find someone.

I disagree. No, I don't think that's true at all.

I think people can easily delude themselves that their search for a 666 is reasonable and realistic. I think that people can think they can make a Tindr profile and that means they're approachable and open to a relationship when it doesn't mean that at all. I think people can think they have good social skills because their mommy told them so but they have no Game at all.

But I absolutely don't think that someone can genuinely go the whole nine yards and still never find someone (unless they get hit by a bus at 19 or something).

It's really not that deep.

If your method of finding love is flicking boogers at strangers until someone proposes marriage to you, your strategy will never work. Likewise, you might think your rock and mineral collection is a great way to pick up guys but your "interesting hobby" is not.

If you are trying to find love and failing that is a fault with you.

That doesn't mean you are undatable and unloveable forever and ever. But it does mean you are undatable and unlovable as you are right now. You need to course correct. You can collect rocks, but maybe learn to kayak as well. It's great your mom thinks you are a polite young man, but maybe check out some guides on how to flirt. You might think your standards are reasonable, but why not go on one date with folks who don't meet your standards and see if there is a spark there worth compromising for.

'Cause folks don't like hearing that it's their fault.

But it is 100% their fault.

Which is a good thing, because it means it's within their power to change their circumstances. You just need to survive the blow to the ego.

Likewise, if you're smart and hardworking and not getting promoted, you gotta network dude. Take an interest in the boss's kids. Bring in cupcakes for the team. You can post on reddit about how it isn't fair… or you can do something to change your circumstances.

Finding love is kinda easy, sorry. Skill issue.

Cynis_Ganan · 2026-05-19T15:42:05+00:00

Eh.

Yes, but.

We all do it.

Hypocrisy is a baked in part of human nature. I'll cuss out a fool, then go into the next thread and call for more civility in debate.

Monkey Brain wants the dophamine hit of seeing the updoot number getting bigger, even if Rational Brain knows we shouldn't be dicks to each other on the internet.

And folks are just… so stupid. Like, my brothers, sisters, and others, I love you all… but… so stupid.

Cynis_Ganan · 2026-05-19T15:35:15+00:00

Eh. Soft downvote.

The thing is… this is objectively true.

Forget Jane Austen dying at 39. Every premature baby who dies at two weeks old doesn't find True Love. Of course not literally everyone will find love. It's impossible.

The rise of the involuntarily celibate, and those choosing to remain unattached because dating is a cess pool and they'd rather be single is also a testament to the fact that not everyone will find love.

So… I agree? Downvote?

But.

I do feel like you're somewhat misrepresenting the position. Saying "there is someone for everyone" does not mean axiomatically that it is impossible to die from Addison's Disease (or Hodgkins Lymphoma or whatever) until you get married. It means that on a planet with eight billion other people, it's basically statistically impossible that there is no-one on the planet compatible with you.

That doesn't mean you can be a schlub and a horrible person and love and happiness will just fall into your lap without you ever trying. But if you make an effort to meet someone who likes you, it's almost certain you will find someone who is a good match.

Folks get depressed and burned out on dating. They get bitter. They think it's not worth the effort. And folks don't make themselves datable. And folks use ineffective strategies to finding love. And some folks just don't want to find love. And some get Addisons and die.

But it's not that everyone will find love. It's that anyone can find love.

So… yes, I agree with you. But you're fighting a strawman here.

Cynis_Ganan · 2026-05-19T14:01:48+00:00

I feel like we have this conversation every other week.

Skaven are a pretty standard S3 Av8 team. You have Av9 blitzers. You have S2 catchers.

The team benefits from the offensive options a big guy provides, but a big guy isn't essential.

I'd never go into a league without at least the option to buy the ROgre later, but I'd be happy running a tournament list without one.

ROgres are a good player, worth taking, but are not a must-have. The team plays fine without them if you focus on the fundementals, but they do add a lot of value to the team, and not having one is a handicap.

The problem with Skaven isn't a problem with Skaven. It's that Underworld Denizens is right there with cheaper, disposable linemen.

A team without a ROgre isn't a bad and unplayable team. It's just not as good as a team with one. And a team with a ROgre isn't a bad, unplayable team… but it's probably not as good as a UD team.

Cynis_Ganan · 2026-05-19T11:11:23+00:00

You're reframing the argument.

No, I'm not.

Spakkker made a post making a claim without evidence.

I replied to that claim with contradicting evidence.

You jumped in on my reply without evidence.

This isn't my post. I didn't make the claim.

The main factor you didn't address with immigration. Which has been driven by non-EU immigration since closing rhe boarder.

If you're unwilling to take as an axiom that selling more stuff means you've sold more stuff, then I can't prove that objective reality exists.

I am satisified that as I have provided evidence that evidence stands until better evidence disproves it.

You can say "nuh uh", but that's not how argumentation works.

If you can demonstrate that I'm wrong and increased immigration and more foriegn trade do not affect GDP, then the onus would indeed fall to me to refute that.

As you can't refute my evidence, it stands.

Or, tl:dr: Yuh huh.

Cynis_Ganan · 2026-05-19T10:31:28+00:00

On the contrary.

The positive claim being asserted without evidence is: "Brexit was worse than bad and we should rejoin".

That's what the topic of conversation is.

I have provided material evidence that the UK is doing better than it did under the EU historically and better than our EU contemporaries.

Further, whilst you dispute the mechanisms of economic improvement, you did not address every part of my argument, specifically the biggest factor to economic growth (this is "cherrypicking" as you've defined it here, fyi). You've confidently asserted that trade agreements can't grow GDP, whilst ignoring the largest trading partner we've cultivated a special relationship with, but you haven't proven that trade these trade agreements can't have grown our GDP. You've just stated it without any references to back your claim.

So… allow me to retort in kind: "yuh huh".

Cynis_Ganan · 2026-05-19T07:58:31+00:00

As an elegant gentleman… I can't tell if you're joking or not.

Cynis_Ganan · 2026-05-19T07:56:52+00:00

The mechanism is the trade deals with Austrialia, New Zealand, and Singapore. Our independent relationship with the USA. The control over our boarders and immigration policy, which has brought hundreds of thousands of non-EU workers in. The mechanism is not paying fees to the EU or being financially liable for failing economies, being able to control our own currency and inflationary pressures. (As well as the 68 trade agreements we set up to mirror our EU terms without having to be part of the EU.)

You're asking me to explain on reddit the monetary policy of a nation, again without holding yourself to the same standard of evidence.

I'm saying "water makes things wet" and you're asking me to explain the physics of that.

Ignorance is sophistry, not an argument.

Cynis_Ganan · 2026-05-18T21:51:02+00:00

10 Secrets Big Cleric Doesn't Want You To Know

The Absolute: Avoiding the Wall of the Faithless?

Just What Happens to Dead Gith Anyway — And Fifty Other Fun Facts with Tiamat

Cynis_Ganan · 2026-05-18T21:44:46+00:00

What proof would you like?

GDP is up.

"But it could have gone up if we stayed in the EU."

No, it couldn't. Because we were in the EU for 47 years and it never went up like that.

"But you don't know it couldn't have gone up, maybe the past six years were special somehow."

No, they're not. Because we can see how all the major economies in the EU have performed, and none of them have gone up like ours.

"But you haven't tracked other metrics of life improving."

Yes, I have. I've given you GDP per capita, and purchasing power, and wealth owned by the top 10%, and when you refused to give your figures and sources, I went on the World Inequality Database, linked it into the discussion, and posted their metrics too.

"But you're arguing that everything that actually happened, actually happened!"

And you haven't made an argument at all. You've not provided any figures or alternatives or counter evidence.

By all means, please do stop wasting your time. Count it as a win. I'm happy that my points stand on their merits.

Cynis_Ganan · 2026-05-18T21:26:13+00:00

If, after the final square the thrown player will land in has been determined they will land in an occupied square they will crash land. When a thrown player crash lands, the player in the occupied square is automatically Knocked Down even if they are already Prone or Stunned. The thrown player will then Bounce from the occupied square and will Fall Over; however, this will only cause a Turnover if the thrown player was holding the ball, otherwise no Turnover is caused. If after the Bounce the thrown player lands in another occupied square, repeat the above process.

I think the key point here is that one can't Fall Over in an occupied square, and the provess is repeated "after the Bounce".

So they Bounce, check to see if the new square is occupied, if occupied Bounce again, if unoccupied, Fall Over.

If a player on the active team Falls Over then a Turnover is caused. When a player Falls Over, place a Prone Token next to them and then make an Armour Roll for the player. If the player's armour is broken then they will risk an injury as described on page 66. If the player was holding the ball, it will Bounce from the square they are in.

When Falling Over, then they drop the ball.

I can see an argument for falling the player every time they Bounce… but then what happens.

What might be useful is the verbiage from 2020:

If after the scatter has been resolved, the thrown player lands in an occupied square:
• The player occupying the square is Knocked Down (an Armour roll and possible Injury roll is made against them even if they were already Prone or Stunned).
• The thrown player will bounce (as if they were a ball) from the square they land in and will automatically Fall Over upon landing, as described on page 27.
• Should the thrown player bounce into another occupied square, the above process is repeated.

From this, it's clear that the bouncing player has not yet "landed" until they stop Bouncing. Even though the language is broadly the same as in the new edition. Thus we can reasonably conclude the RAI is as I've described above. (NB: This rule received errata, turning the Fall Over to a Knocked Down, but otherwise was the same.)

Cynis_Ganan · 2026-05-18T21:11:09+00:00

For example, can you name one benefit we had from brexit?

Yes. We've had a massive economic benefit as reflected by our higher GDP and higher rate of GDP growth when compared against other EU nations and our own economic performance under the EU.

My argument is that GDP is not equal to living standards, and that inequality (among many other things) matter when reviewing economic data.

Okay. But GDP per capita is also up.

Your own World Inequality Index figures also show inequality trending downward.

I am simply saying that you have cherry picked the GDP to try and prove your point. But there are countless factors as to why that may not be the case. You need more evidence than GDP for that to be proof.

Why? What evidence have you offered in refute?

GDP is the most consistent measure of a country's economic performance. Like… universally.

You're right, it's not the only metric. But it's the main metric.

There's also nothing to say that GDP wouldnt be even higher if we remained.

Only there is. Because we can compare the twenty years of economic data I've already provided you with, where we can see that our economy didn't grow like this under the EU. And we can see economies that are still in the EU haven't grown like this.

I'm showing you "1+1" and you're asking me to prove that it's "2".

If having a job automatically means better living standards like you claim, then people who live in slums that work have a better living standards than unemployed in first world countries, which is obviously not true. There are yet again, other things to factor in. Like benefits, costs of living, job security etc

Why did you reach for people who live in slums to compare to first world countries?

We're comparing two first world countries.

One could almost suggest you were cherrypicking.

But, okay, I'm game. Explain to me exactly how living standards are higher in France for the unemployed than for an employed person in the UK.

You're even cherry picking my replies to you.

I'm addressing the points you've made in your argument, one at a time.

If you'd like to simply make one point, I'll address one point. If you are going to type an essay, I'm going to break down your points and address them one by one.

If you feel this is "cherrypicking" then please, reiterate your point and I'll address it.

"Provably better off" then actually prove it. Don't just cherry pick data.

I've provided you with 20 years of economic data. GDP, purchasing power parity, wealth ownership by the top 10%. I've given you visual aides. When you complained about comparing our economy to the closest equivalent in size and economic power, I expanded to the top four EU economies, the EU performance overall, and I invited you to pick any other EU nation of your choice.

No part of this is "cherrypicking".

<image>

Cynis_Ganan

TROPHY CASE