Forums of the Megaverse®

Posted: **Sun Jan 18, 2015 10:52 am**

Correction they have clarified there are multiple prizes.

Posted: **Sun Jan 18, 2015 11:08 am**

I've gone to enough tournaments at adepticon to know there's multiple prizes. If I can get the figs painted and a few games in I'll try to sign up. The cold weather plus work has been muder on my hands to the point I can barely hold a pen let alone try painting.

Posted: **Sun Jan 18, 2015 12:52 pm**

I've never had the hands to detailed painting on minis. Basic colours I can manage.

Posted: **Sun Jan 18, 2015 11:28 pm**

Late to the party on this topic as I am, I think there is an important distinction that gets missed in these debates:

There is an award for the player who plays the best. It may not be the top prize but the people creating the event don't just want to award the players who can kick the most butt, they are attempting to be inclusive to everyone who is a part of the community.

I see the argument brought up both here, and everywhere else this is being discussed, that to have a painting score excludes people who cant paint well from a chance to win. I would argue it's the opposite. What about the people who know they aren't the best tacticians but enjoy the painting. Or the people who aren't great at either but are generally fun to play with. So many other game systems have changed their tournament rules to just score on a win/loss schedule. This slowly disheartens the less talented players and the events become more and more about winning and less and less about the community/hobby/game as a whole.

If you know you don't paint well. Get 3 colors on those bad boys and aim to win best general.
If you know you don't play well. Make those minis look amazing so you can be proud of what you have created and take a shot at best painted.

The more you practice the thing you aren't good at the better you will get. Keep striving to be better and you may get a shot at best overall.

Posted: **Tue Jan 20, 2015 4:51 pm**

Dionysus wrote:Late to the party on this topic as I am, I think there is an important distinction that gets missed in these debates:

There is an award for the player who plays the best. It may not be the top prize but the people creating the event don't just want to award the players who can kick the most butt, they are attempting to be inclusive to everyone who is a part of the community.

I see the argument brought up both here, and everywhere else this is being discussed, that to have a painting score excludes people who cant paint well from a chance to win. I would argue it's the opposite. What about the people who know they aren't the best tacticians but enjoy the painting. Or the people who aren't great at either but are generally fun to play with. So many other game systems have changed their tournament rules to just score on a win/loss schedule. This slowly disheartens the less talented players and the events become more and more about winning and less and less about the community/hobby/game as a whole.

If you know you don't paint well. Get 3 colors on those bad boys and aim to win best general.
If you know you don't play well. Make those minis look amazing so you can be proud of what you have created and take a shot at best painted.

The more you practice the thing you aren't good at the better you will get. Keep striving to be better and you may get a shot at best overall.

THIS!!! Great post all around.

Posted: **Tue Jan 20, 2015 9:17 pm**

Dionysus wrote:Late to the party on this topic as I am, I think there is an important distinction that gets missed in these debates:

There is an award for the player who plays the best. It may not be the top prize but the people creating the event don't just want to award the players who can kick the most butt, they are attempting to be inclusive to everyone who is a part of the community.

I see the argument brought up both here, and everywhere else this is being discussed, that to have a painting score excludes people who cant paint well from a chance to win. I would argue it's the opposite. What about the people who know they aren't the best tacticians but enjoy the painting. Or the people who aren't great at either but are generally fun to play with. So many other game systems have changed their tournament rules to just score on a win/loss schedule. This slowly disheartens the less talented players and the events become more and more about winning and less and less about the community/hobby/game as a whole.

If you know you don't paint well. Get 3 colors on those bad boys and aim to win best general.
If you know you don't play well. Make those minis look amazing so you can be proud of what you have created and take a shot at best painted.

The more you practice the thing you aren't good at the better you will get. Keep striving to be better and you may get a shot at best overall.

The above is all well and good when there is multiple prizes to be won, which we now know is the case, and I am quite fine with. However that was not known by the original release for the RRT tournament. It was only posted as the winner will be determined by XYZ123. THE winner. I have an issue with a gaming tournament winner being possibly decided by a paint job. It is first and foremost a game, not a modelling contest after all. It has since however been clarified and corrected on the RRT tournament document.

Posted: **Wed Jan 21, 2015 9:00 am**

Jaymz since adepticon is only tabletop games and the mini's are the shiny eye candy that helps attract more people. From my cruddy ain't jobs to the top paint jobs a painted fig will draw more attention than bare plastic. If that guy with a good paint job, does well with his games, and doesn't be a jerk he should get a little boost from the soft scores. Over all tabletop games are a huge hobby, you need more players than just the good players for it to survive.

Posted: **Wed Jan 21, 2015 4:11 pm**

I'm not disputing that. My point is if you are going to have only one winner of a GAME tournament (which we now know is not the case) then the GAME is what should decide it. Again it is still a GAME first and foremost NOT a modelling contest. I've said my piece but keep in mind THIS game has a lot more first timers to mini gaming than many of you realize I think.

Posted: **Wed Jan 21, 2015 5:31 pm**

jaymz wrote:I'm not disputing that. My point is if you are going to have only one winner of a GAME tournament (which we now know is not the case) then the GAME is what should decide it. Again it is still a GAME first and foremost NOT a modelling contest. I've said my piece but keep in mind THIS game has a lot more first timers to mini gaming than many of you realize I think.

Lots of tournaments award points for painting, both because building and painting is part of the hobby and to deter players from buying stuff just for that tournament because the list they are playing is the list to beat.

Posted: **Wed Jan 21, 2015 6:06 pm**

ok then jaymz, how about we just agree to teach the first timers there is more to the game than just smashing the other guy's army? I know when I was all about just smashing the other guy I ran out of players and at tournaments my soft scores tanked because of a bad rep and the I need to win mentality. it took years to climb out of the bad rep and get people to want to play against me again. so if you tell me there's only one winner he better be a hell of an all round gamer to be able to win it.

Posted: **Thu Jan 22, 2015 10:50 am**

Marcus wrote:deter players from buying stuff just for that tournament because the list they are playing is the list to beat.

As a gamer, I can agree with the "flavour of the month" approach being frustrating.

As a company, somehow I doubt Palladium would be crying buckets if a big tournament led to a couple hundred extra boxes getting picked up in preparation.

@rosco: Man, I don't know if there's a language barrier, but you continue to attack points that Jaymz is not making.

Posted: **Thu Jan 22, 2015 10:41 pm**

rosco60559 wrote:ok then jaymz, how about we just agree to teach the first timers there is more to the game than just smashing the other guy's army?

So in other words "sucks that you can't paint for crap and don't have the ability to get better. too bad for you" Thanks. really encourages me to bother entering tournaments if that is the attitude I'll get from players like yourself.

I know when I was all about just smashing the other guy I ran out of players and at tournaments my soft scores tanked because of a bad rep and the I need to win mentality. it took years to climb out of the bad rep and get people to want .to play against me again.

ok rosco....how about we teach people to not be jerks when playing each other instead of artificially inflating how good PLAYERS are in a tournament with these so called "soft scores"? If a player is a jerk you toss him/her or penalize them in such a way that he/she gets the point in a hurry.

so if you tell me there's only one winner he better be a hell of an all round gamer to be able to win it

Correction, he better be one hell of an all around hobbyist as the modelling and painting are not actually part of the game but the hobby as a whole.

To be clear:

I have no problem with armies being painted as a requirement.

I have no problem with an award for best painted army.

I DO have a problem with effectively being told "sucks to be you that you can't paint for crap or afford 1000s of dollars for a professional custom paint job" and thus always being put at a disadvantage to those who have the talent or money to do so if a tournament is going to have only one winner.

To demonstrate how this would be applied to other things

Driver A finishes first at the Daytona 500. Driver B finishes second but Driver B has a prettier car so is awarded the victory.

An RPG demo has a "winner" given to the person with the most XP at the end of the session. The best role player gets 2500 XP while the second place player gets 2400 xp but gets 200 bonus xp for having prettier dice for a total of 2600 xp and thus is the "winner"

A hockey team get the most wins and points in a season but the second place team has prettier uniforms so they get the title.

THAT is how I see this. Have an award for the pretty pieces. Fine no problem. However if you are having a tournament that involves the game as the focus (and face it, the game IS the focus if you are PLAYING it) that will only have A winner, then the best PLAYER should win NOT one of the best who also has one of the prettiest armies. You are not going to change my mind on this so stop trying.

Did it ever occur to anyone that the mentality of "well you better be good at ALL aspects to be considered a good mini gamer" is why the elitist label is applied to mini gamers more than any other type of gamer that I have seen? That isn't a good thing.

Posted: **Fri Jan 23, 2015 11:34 am**

Multiple prize categories it will have. So the best player will be awarded his prize by going undefeated. Period. Everything else in the awards categories is for the people that just want to show up and play and not give a fig about who the best player for the day is...but may want to compete (yes compete) for another type of award. As an event, you have to cater to everyone's tastes to get maximum attendees and maximum tournament participation. You also can't please everyone. The 40k gladiator tournament at adepticon was a no holds barred event and eventually the cut throat nature created a decline in it's attendance over time (among other things) and it was eventually dropped as an event. Just to give you some perspective, the NOVA invitational is a tournament that is W-L only, but also offers other prize categories within the event as well. Despite all of that...if you feel it's still not for you...then don't enter into the event. It's really that simple.

Posted: **Fri Jan 23, 2015 12:03 pm**

Did it ever occur to anyone that the mentality of "well you better be good at ALL aspects to be considered a good mini gamer" is why the elitist label is applied to mini gamers more than any other type of gamer that I have seen? That isn't a good thing.

As primarily a wargamer myself...I take offense to this statement. I do not consider myself an elitist gamer by any stretch of the imagination. That is a label that you and others have applied, and only shows the ignorance of not knowing how these events are run and how wargame communities are. That being said: any type of wargame that requires the building/ painting/ modeling and has a strong narrative background (fluff) components...is just as important as playing the game itself to many. That's basically one of the main reasons why many play games like that at all. So to be well rounded in all areas of exploring the hobby is usually awarded as a prize category...and that's usually Best Overall. This type of player is the one that practices perfection in all areas of the game and hobby. A player that wins this category isn't a player that paid to have their army painted either.

Posted: **Sat Jan 24, 2015 12:37 am**

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there 20 slots at the event?

And 4 rounds being played?

Posted: **Sat Jan 24, 2015 12:46 am**

In other words "suck it up and if you don't like it too bad". Gotcha thanks I'll be sure not to bother with any tournaments then and for that matter I'm going to seriously rethink bothering demoing this game if that is the attitude I should expect from mini war gamers.

Posted: **Sat Jan 24, 2015 1:47 am**

Or run your own tournament. Just use battle/objective points, no other scores, no paint requirements.
Like my dad said when I was growing up, "if you don't like what I put on the table there's the stove, get cooking."

Posted: **Sat Jan 24, 2015 2:27 am**

jaymz wrote:In other words "suck it up and if you don't like it too bad". Gotcha thanks I'll be sure not to bother with any tournaments then and for that matter I'm going to seriously rethink bothering demoing this game if that is the attitude I should expect from mini war gamers.

So all need to do it the way you approve?

Posted: **Sat Jan 24, 2015 9:10 am**

All I have essentially seen is the attitude I have stated. No one has even acknowledge the possibility of change or discussion of change. How I approve? No, but just because that is the way it always has been does not mean to can evolve or change, or that it is actually god the way it is. RRT is not going to be quite like most other Mini games. I've seen quite a high number of people who got into this as their first war game just because of the setting. To me these new people will end up very discouraged and I've already seen a number get rid of their games due to that discouragement. Personally I want the game MORE conducive to more people coming in. "If you don't like the way things are then tough that's they way are" is not conducive to that in my opinion.

I've stated my concerns in regards to a type of tournament and have essentially been told "tough crap that's your problem". THAT, I will walk away from and I am typically a pretty accepting, tolerant, an reasonable guy. If I'M willing to walk away from crap like that, and have been a VERY casual mini gamer in the past as well as current RPGer....how many new people do you think will when given that knd of attitude?

RRT is NOT 40K or Warmachine or even Battletech. This is not some slam dunk property. This thing started with an uphill battle from it's inception. It NEEDS to be done and promoted in a way as to get as many people interested, encouraged and incentivized into playing a possible.

The corrected the miscommunication of the Adepticon tourny in that they have different prizes so that there is a player who wins the tournament but then other prizes for other categories. That is a good thing. I agree with that. Hell I agree with having the minis painted in general as a requirement. THAT is indeed respectful. I will never agree to having a single winner of a tournament (IE where there ARE no other prizes for other categories) being determined by something that is as subjective as the judging of how good paint job is because of the fact it is too bloody subjective (IE what you may think is a slam dunk awesomesauce paint job I may think is meh but if you are the judge and I am not that paint job will score high whereas if i were the judge it would not). What concerns me is that so many seem to think this is ok just because "well that's the way it is" and "well it helps keep the jerks in check" when what should be done is things t just "keep the jerks in check". To wit, I also have no issue with penalizing poor sportsmanship which may cause a player to lose a tournament in the end.

Maybe if the jerkiness was more heavily penalized and dealt with, rosco, as a self admitted problem player, wouldn't have taken as long as he did to get more players but instead status quo left him on the path he walked.

I supposed I could be in the minority that if I lose (obviously unless it is because of pretty pieces and nothing else) that I accept that I lost and move on while trying to figure where I went wrong in the game as opposed to thinking "well I am lost because I am at the limit of my painting abilities and that guys minis were just so nice looking by comparison" which would put me in a jerky mood *shrugs*

Have fun guys. I'll be over here playing games and trying to figure out how to play games via skype or sumsuch with people due the to sever lack of interest in my area (I'm thinking using old Battletech maps if people have them)

Posted: **Sat Jan 24, 2015 1:44 pm**

actually, there is valid concern for what kind of rules are in use for this.
the tournament rules employed by games at adepticon have become a kind of standard for most gamers when running their own.

so unless and until an official PB set of tourney rules come out, the style used at adepticon will basically be the default for most people.

Posted: **Sun Jan 25, 2015 4:22 am**

Forar wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there 20 slots at the event?

And 4 rounds being played?

Posted: **Mon Jan 26, 2015 12:09 am**

jaymz wrote:In other words "suck it up and if you don't like it too bad". Gotcha thanks I'll be sure not to bother with any tournaments then and for that matter I'm going to seriously rethink bothering demoing this game if that is the attitude I should expect from mini war gamers.

Jaymz, what's your beef with the tournament? It's already been spelled out for you. If you want to be the best player they have an award for that. It's called best general. Secondly, this is the first tournament for this game. Expect some hurdles as people attempt to bring this game system into a tournament environment. Adepticon tournaments are fairly standardized so there is consistency year to year and people know what to expect ahead of time. People spend a lot of money to attend Adepticon. Knowing what to expect ahead of time allows people to plan. Lastly, Adepticon is always willing to hear feedback as long as it's constructive. Also understand that large events like these have to cater to a wide array of players, tastes and interests. If you aren't satisfied with the offerings, that's your choice, but it isn't elitism on anyone's part. If you feel Robotech isn't being represented properly at Adepticon...volunteer to run an event of your own. I can even put you in contact with the lead organizers of Adepticon as I know them all personally. If they have space, and you are serious...then they'd be more than happy to have you volunteer to run an event.

Posted: **Mon Jan 26, 2015 1:08 am**

All I have essentially seen is the attitude I have stated. No one has even acknowledge the possibility of change or discussion of change.

Have you even bothered contacting the event organizer of this tournament? What suggestions do you have? If you think that having the first tournament for Robotech be nothing but be about battle points...I have news for you..you will be limiting the number of players willing to play. Empirical data is on my side in this argument. So would you rather have a smaller tournament that turns people away...especially beginners? That's non-sense and only shows your ignorance in how these events are run.

How I approve? No, but just because that is the way it always has been does not mean to can evolve or change, or that it is actually god the way it is. RRT is not going to be quite like most other Mini games. I've seen quite a high number of people who got into this as their first war game just because of the setting. To me these new people will end up very discouraged and I've already seen a number get rid of their games due to that discouragement.

This statement makes no sense at all. So you think that not having a tournament be all about W-L is discouraging people from entering? Especially beginners? Sorry man, you're wrong in this instance. If anything the opposite is true. Because RRT is different than most wargames, people are going to want more out of the event IMHO. I think for the first type of tournament, I think this event is a good start. Based on feedback from the people that played in it...I think this event will evolve over time...like every other event that's evolved over time at Adepticon. Give it a chance.

Personally I want the game MORE conducive to more people coming in. "If you don't like the way things are then tough that's they way are" is not conducive to that in my opinion

See above. This statement makes zero sense in the context of how this event is being run. The rules for this event is to be as inclusive as possible to all types of wargamers...to beginners, to veterans, to painter/modelers..this tournament offers something for all those people.

I've stated my concerns in regards to a type of tournament and have essentially been told "tough crap that's your problem".

I don't think I've told you that once. I've stated: If the event isn't something that doesn't interest you...then don't play. If you interpret that as "suck it up"...that's your perception...but that's not my intent. My intent, is simply...vote with your wallet. However, I have a better solution. If you want the kind of event you want...then volunteer to run one in the manner you like.

THAT, I will walk away from and I am typically a pretty accepting, tolerant, an reasonable guy. If I'M willing to walk away from crap like that, and have been a VERY casual mini gamer in the past as well as current RPGer....how many new people do you think will when given that knd of attitude?

I don't know about you, but the approach to this tournament seems pretty casual. It has multiple prize categories. It seems pretty laid back/ no pressure. However, you claim you aren't pleased with his format and want it to be strictly W-L with no other factors involved? How is that casual? How does that foster a community of beginners? How does that create broad appeal to get people involved in the event? Anecdote: Back in 1992 my first 40k tournament wasn't all about W-L...and I'm glad it wasn't. If it was, I doubt I would have entered the tournament..because it would have been a turn off as a beginner to the tournament scene. I can safely assume many other wargamers share that experience of sentiment.

RRT is NOT 40K or Warmachine or even Battletech. This is not some slam dunk property. This thing started with an uphill battle from it's inception. It NEEDS to be done and promoted in a way as to get as many people interested, encouraged and incentivized into playing a possible.

You are correct. It's a new wargame in a sea of many other wargames competing for people's attention. However, how is this event NOT encouraging as many people to play aspossible? It's offering things that appeals to a broad base of people. So by that rationale, it's doing exactly what you want it to be doing. By having this kind of event at Adepticon, it does the following: 1.)The game is getting maximum exposure on a national level. 2.) the format appeals to a broad base of people and their interests. 3.) The rules/ missions seem straight forward that anyone with any familiarity with the game can play. 4.) Legitimizes the game in a competitive setting. I'm not sure how you'd think differently about that and again I chalk it up being ignorant of how these events are run. You're making snap judgements about things you haven't even seen or experienced. Give it a chance.

The corrected the miscommunication of the Adepticon tourny in that they have different prizes so that there is a player who wins the tournament but then other prizes for other categories. That is a good thing. I agree with that. Hell I agree with having the minis painted in general as a requirement. THAT is indeed respectful.

Great. That is exactly what this event is doing...so why are you not supporting it? Or even attending it? If you want this game to thrive...wouldn't you want to support the game in it's infancy any way you can?

I will never agree to having a single winner of a tournament (IE where there ARE no other prizes for other categories) being determined by something that is as subjective as the judging of how good paint job is because of the fact it is too bloody subjective (IE what you may think is a slam dunk awesomesauce paint job I may think is meh but if you are the judge and I am not that paint job will score high whereas if i were the judge it would not).

This statement makes no sense in the context of this event. The Best Overall prize is the only prize that will have all the points as a composite. The other prizes are determined by the most point in that area. So the Best General will be awarded for the best player. Not sure what the confusion is.

What concerns me is that so many seem to think this is ok just because "well that's the way it is" and "well it helps keep the jerks in check" when what should be done is things t just "keep the jerks in check". To wit, I also have no issue with penalizing poor sportsmanship which may cause a player to lose a tournament in the end.

Maybe if the jerkiness was more heavily penalized and dealt with, rosco, as a self admitted problem player, wouldn't have taken as long as he did to get more players but instead status quo left him on the path he walked.

Sportsmanship rarely effects any outcome of a top player's score. Most top players have done this for years and know what to expect and how to conduct themselves. Sportsmanship is mainly there for the 1% of players that can't control themselves and treat others poorly..via heated rules arguments, name calling, cheating, etc. Most likely, repeat offenders are removed from the game. I suggest you read Adepticon's policy regarding players such as these. They will not tolerate it...and as a former Adepticon judge...I can assure you..they will remove players that cause problems.

I supposed I could be in the minority that if I lose (obviously unless it is because of pretty pieces and nothing else) that I accept that I lost and move on while trying to figure where I went wrong in the game as opposed to thinking "well I am lost because I am at the limit of my painting abilities and that guys minis were just so nice looking by comparison" which would put me in a jerky mood *shrugs*

Dude, you are far to hung up on this. 95% of the time a player that is winning most his games and has an average paint score will place in the top 10. I've seen it many times over 20+ years of tournament play. I've seen it and lived it at Adepticon. You are building this up into hypotheticals...and not grounded in any real sense of reality..in how it actually is

Have fun guys. I'll be over here playing games and trying to figure out how to play games via skype or sumsuch with people due the to sever lack of interest in my area (I'm thinking using old Battletech maps if people have them)

So you'd rather not be actively involved in fostering a Robotech community on a national scale? I would argue that it's this kind of attitude that kills a game. Not the other way around. Alienating yourself from other prospective players isn't going to do this game any favors. You have a great opportunity to meet other Robotech players and build up a community...on a national level to boot. But you are letting hypotheticals, assumptions about things, cloud your judgment in this matter. Also, if you want a different type of event at Adepticon...volunteer to run one. Personally, Robotech is more of a narrative wargame...and honestly, I'm shocked that no one has yet to set up a narrative event...like a day long campaign or something...or even a narrative game. I would think that would be a great way to get players exposed to the game without the pressure to "compete". Getting people to learn about the game and like it should be a bigger priority at the moment rather than finding out who the best Robotech player is for that weekend. But what do I know? LOL.

_________________

Posted: **Mon Feb 02, 2015 10:34 pm**

Are there "overall commander of your force" rules anywhere that I missed. Characters are just that characters but I could have missed that in reading the book.

Posted: **Tue Feb 03, 2015 10:58 am**

I don't seem to recall that and I don't have my rulebook handy. If not, I'd assume it's the model with the highest LD value if they have one.

Posted: **Tue Feb 03, 2015 11:29 am**

I'd assumed it meant you had to have either a regular Character or an RPG character in the mix.

Hopefully that'll be clarified.

That said, one can use either for 5-10 points, so it's not a huge tax on the forces, though it does limit some options in minor ways.

Posted: **Tue Feb 03, 2015 11:20 pm**

Well I see some problems characters price can very greatly on what they pilot: They are allowing one minor advance which is 5 pts the pilots are what cost you there know way I am putting a character in a BattlePod. I got an email because I want to double check my Female Power Armor for my character and the answer confuse me. Either they need to change the PDF rules or needs more clarification but I want to write a response to that not a bit before I go to bed.

1.Does the character (Army Leader) have to be attached to a unit or can it be a loose mecha? Book has no overall commander rules are there additional rules or is it just bad wording for a character in your force?

answer: 1.) A commander must be in a force. Wherever it is, is up to you.

If they said attached to a unit or core but that just the above is not clear.

Several other questions are left unclear as well.

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2015 5:59 pm**

My questions:
A few more things I want to check.

1.Does the character (Army Leader) have to be attached to a unit or can it be a loose mecha? Book has no overall commander rules are there additional rules or is it just bad wording for a character in your force?

2. Is it cool to use my Female Power Armor from GenCon? We have the stats but not a card yet. I still need to work on it.

3. Could I buy Miriya and use the creation character rules to get her a mecha?

4. The objective markers do they need to be serious? I was thinking of making my own "That's a big tuna fish" but all I could find was other fish or sharks, but did get a plastic Sushi that is of course tuna. Could I use non RRPGT figures to make a down experimental mecha or a mecha junk pile?

Answered

1.) A commander must be in a force. Wherever it is, is up to you.

2.) Sadly no. The card must be an official PB stat card.

3.) Yes I think they have a list if the vehicles she can be in on the card.

4.) You won't need to make these any more. But yes that will work.

Kyle

then I asked please I need more clarification.

1. Did you mean to say the overall commander is just a character in your army list? Characters must be attached to a core unit or overall commander leader of all force not attached to core unit.

2. Does not make sense to me. If your saying what I think your saying you need to update the pdf of the rules.
"The RRPGT main rule book will be used. All stats from the main rule book/core cards will be used."
You are allowing created characters. they have no cards and get their own mecha. I assume we make our own card for the character for the mecha stats in the core and character creation section.
It is an official RRPGT model.
It not a unit just the character in her vehicle we pay for individually not a unit that is in wave 2.

3. Does not make sense with your answer to the above .
I think the difference between the two character systems is a bit confusing.

4. Is that official will you be updating the pdf.

Have not gotten a response since Feb 2

What do you think?

Forums of the Megaverse®

Adepticon 2015 RRT tournament!

Re: Adepticon 2015 RRT tournament!

Re: Adepticon 2015 RRT tournament!

Re: Adepticon 2015 RRT tournament!

Re: Adepticon 2015 RRT tournament!

Re: Adepticon 2015 RRT tournament!

Re: Adepticon 2015 RRT tournament!

Re: Adepticon 2015 RRT tournament!

Re: Adepticon 2015 RRT tournament!

Re: Adepticon 2015 RRT tournament!

Re: Adepticon 2015 RRT tournament!

Re: Adepticon 2015 RRT tournament!

Re: Adepticon 2015 RRT tournament!

Re: Adepticon 2015 RRT tournament!

Re: Adepticon 2015 RRT tournament!

Re: Adepticon 2015 RRT tournament!

Re: Adepticon 2015 RRT tournament!

Re: Adepticon 2015 RRT tournament!

Re: Adepticon 2015 RRT tournament!

Re: Adepticon 2015 RRT tournament!

Re: Adepticon 2015 RRT tournament!

Re: Adepticon 2015 RRT tournament!

Re: Adepticon 2015 RRT tournament!

Re: Adepticon 2015 RRT tournament!

Re: Adepticon 2015 RRT tournament!

Re: Adepticon 2015 RRT tournament!

Re: Adepticon 2015 RRT tournament!

Re: Adepticon 2015 RRT tournament!

Re: Adepticon 2015 RRT tournament!