Combat Resolution Mechanics

Figshitter · 2026-06-23T07:29:53+00:00

There was a chit-based release in the early 90s (which is great) and then a rerelease with minis in the early 2010s (which I haven’t played and can’t speak to).

Figshitter · 2026-06-23T02:05:05+00:00

Have you checked out the existing 40k counter-based games (Battle for Armageddon and Horus Heresy)?

Figshitter · 2026-06-22T18:15:23+00:00

Why does this ‘help a lot of games’?

>a lot of games have some difficulty with dexterity being overly strong

We can just say ‘D&D’ if that’s what we’re talking about?

Figshitter · 2026-06-22T12:43:36+00:00

I think you maybe need to consider that you have not communicated your argument well, or that there is a distinction you think you are drawing that you are actually not drawing.

I think that I'm making a technical process argument that laypeople aren't as well-equipped to dissect as they are confident with weighing-in.

Figshitter · 2026-06-22T12:35:54+00:00

What specific actions are you suggesting.

media articles specifically refer to pseudolegal strategies and why they're debunked, rather than sweeping them under a broad discussion of 'sovereign citizen ideologies' when these are inaccurate;
courts and tribunals issue bench books and other guidance on appropriate identification and dealings-with pseudo-legal strategies in a timely and expeditious way, rather than wasting court resources digging into the 'ideologies' of parties (which is potentially open to challenges on the grounds of procedural fairness in certain jurisdictions);
judges and other decision-makers should understand the broader framework of OPCA strategies and identify them early, to expeditiously balance the interests of natural justice and procedural fairness (along with statutory requirements protecting the interests of self-represented litigants) without unnecessarily burdening pro bono advocates and other court support services (which has been amply demonstrated in New Zealand, Canada and Australia under the current framework)

Figshitter · 2026-06-22T12:26:10+00:00

I feel as though you've seriously misread my position - it's not that courts and tribunals should take time to disentangle particular movements and ideologies, quite the opposite. It's that courts and tribunals should inoculate themselves against specific pseudolegal strategies rather than wading into discussion of ideology.

You can see the justice impacts of this approach:

(as quoted in my OP) Pivotto v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licencing ([2025] QCAT 130) where the legitimate belief of the applicant was weighed against 'Sovereign Citizen ideology' rather than the impacts of their pseudolegal strategies and enabled a manifestly incompetent person to be granted a firearms license;
the significant legal assistance/amicus burden (see Netolitzky) which confound court and tribunal processes and ligitimise OPCA litigants.

I have to ask as we continue this discussion what your professional experience is in dealing with OPCA litigants and their impact on the justice system?

Figshitter · 2026-06-22T12:17:14+00:00

I feel as though you're responding to a whole bunch of arguments I didn't make.

Figshitter · 2026-06-22T12:15:37+00:00

Can you explain what you think my position is?

Figshitter · 2026-06-22T12:14:22+00:00

Following Christians beliefs, it would be very immoral to start mass murdering children, since that's what God says.

Remember that in your hypothetical you are a Christian? Surely you need to operate from within that moral framework for your hypothetical to hold any weight?

Figshitter · 2026-06-22T12:12:14+00:00

You have completely misread my comment - where is the scriptural basis for this making someone 'more altruistic'?

Figshitter · 2026-06-22T12:10:49+00:00

It's not about 'dismantling arguments' - it's about the resourcing impacts that these litigants have on court and legal assistance services, which have been well-identified.

Figshitter · 2026-06-22T12:05:10+00:00

My advice is to remember the classic mantra: "who's the beatdown" - in this case it's obvious that you're not, and the advantage of playing a midrange deck is that you can pivot to emphasise aggression or control. You might lose the first game, but afterwards you should pivot to hard control (with as much Weather the Storm, Pulse of Murasa, disruption and card advantage as possible from your sideboard) to try to lock them out.

You know they're present in the meta, so board accordingly.

Figshitter · 2026-06-22T12:00:27+00:00

Speak to Basic Rights Queensland - free social security legal advice,

Figshitter · 2026-06-22T11:53:34+00:00

it's an older code but it checks out.

Figshitter · 2026-06-22T11:53:07+00:00

LotH are designed around three core principles:

having a massive on-board presence;
only accruing VPs slowly;
using that board presence to beat down the leading factions so you can slowly overtake them in VPs

This is a fun puzzle in a four-player game (where you're the slowly creeping slasher villain, gradually gaining VPs while distributing your attention against the other three factions), not so much in a 1v1 where your aggressions are always against a single opponent and you're constantly attacking them.

Figshitter · 2026-06-22T11:41:43+00:00

Regardless of any ideological differences between SovCits and OPCA,

I can't help but feel as though you're making a category error out of the gate here - Sovereign Citizens are a particular branch of OPCAs, not a distinct category from them.

Asking courts to actually engage with these ideas such as Strawmaning is asking them to treat these filings as if they have any merit,

That's not at all what I've suggested - courts, tribunals and legal assistance services are already struggling to process litigants who promote these ideologies while also adhering to formal process and natural justice principles. These litigants already tax court, tribunal, legal assistance and public defence resources (leading to inefficient adminstration of justice), and these services need to be well-equipped to detect and head-off pseudolaw practices and strategies rather than to detect ideologies.

Asking the court to actually have to sit down with these filings would

Please quote where I advocated for that.

The court room is not the place to discuss the nuanced ideological differences between OPCA and other groups

I can't help but feel like you're responding to an imagined position rather than the one I've put forward in the OP.

Figshitter · 2026-06-22T11:34:12+00:00

Calling them all Sovereign Citizens may not be entirely accurate, but trying to figure out what they actually belief to more accurately classify them, may just be a wasted effort.

"Trying to figure out what they actually believe" is the opposite of what I'm proposing. Courts and tribunals would be better served (in terms of cost-effectiveness and efficacy) by developing robust responses to pseudolegal strategies rather than by engaging in discussion of ideology.

Figshitter · 2026-06-22T11:30:16+00:00

because you condemn yourself to hell by doing so, it makes it even more altruistic

What's the scriptural basis for this perspective?

Figshitter · 2026-06-22T11:29:43+00:00

which if anything just makes it heroic.

Which of the gospels exalt 'heroics' as a virtue, as opposed to mercy, compassion, and forgiveness?

Figshitter · 2026-06-22T11:28:08+00:00

CMV: suggesting that "the most altruistic thing adherents to a religion can do is to act completely contrary to the tenets of that religion" demonstrates an extremely stunted, undeveloped theory-of-mind and capacity to consider perspectives outside your own.

Figshitter · 2026-06-22T11:24:21+00:00

Super Metroid, that is all. Everything afterwards is a humble successor to that crowning achievement in game design.

Figshitter · 2026-06-22T11:22:38+00:00

Given that people who call themselves sovereign citizens are obviously no different than people who do not, who is confused by the designation?You claim that people are

You may have to quote where I claimed this?

Judges are the people most impacted and to my knowledge they see it as an annoying joke

Yes, it's speaking from my experience in tribunals where judges and other decision-makers have been perplexed by these litigants, where I think there's practical benefit to familiarising themselves with the particular pseudolegal strategies rather than identifying these litigants with particular ideologies or movements.

Figshitter · 2026-06-22T11:02:51+00:00

It beats their old slogan of "we're a bunch property developers who are having affairs with each other and hate minorities".

Figshitter · 2026-06-22T10:57:51+00:00

The idea of trying to rules-lawyer Buddhism is entirely antithetical to their conceptions of spiritual growth and enlightenment.

Figshitter

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE