NoMaDhOoK

Pipe dream: I actually hope that shooting becomes alternating activations (like combat phase), as I think that will allow GW to nerf shooting to a more balanced state. IMO: A major issue with shooting heavy lists in AoS is that either you get the double turn, can shoot twice in a row and decimate, or you get double turned, spend 2 turns doing absolutely nothing, and get decimated. This somewhat forces shooting armies into trying to force the double turn in order to win. That massive disparity makes shooting pretty much impossible to balance (either way too good, or really bad). Having both armies be able to shoot in both turns means that it can be balanced (and reduced) in a more controlled environment (maybe incorporate some of the other suggested shooting changes). --- This assumes that the double turn stays (though personally I wish it would go away)

Yes, I probably didn't explain it very well in the release notes (it's a little hard to summarise in a bullet point or two). I'll take a little time this weekend to take some before and after screenshots, with detailed explanations, and post it here and on the subreddit as a means to explain why this seemingly small change actually makes quite a large impact on the quality of the results (this was a 2.0.0 release after all). I do actually like this idea. I was already planning on overhauling the PDF export page to give users the ability to customise exactly what gets put in it. But now I think it would be better to make a more generic "Export" page, which lets you pick between CSV, or PDF (or other formats in the future) and customise what you want exported (with CSV obviously having more restrictions) Edit: Here is the Github issue for the new Export screen planned in for v2.2.0 (with Google Drive Integration)

[2.0.0] UI Overhaul pt.1, more accurate simulation stats, and performance improvements damonhook released this 11 minutes ago Additions Users can now toggle profile and target modifiers using a toggle switch (fixes #26). UI Remove Beta Tag from non beta features Small UI overhaul for Desktop (Mostly related to the drawer) Add Warcry Statshammer links and buttons (fixes: #23) Change SVG Text Object -> Path (fixes #25) Use SVGIcon instead of loading through img src Make the Left navigation bar responsive based on the following criteria (fixes #34) Large: Show the full drawer Medium: Show a Rail but let users open the drawer Small: Hide the rail, let users open the drawer Add an Average damage graph to the Metrics tab in the Simulations screen for easier reference API Use a calculated population max (The actual max) rather than basing it on the max value of the simulated sample (fixes: #30) This has had the effect of vastly improving the accuracy of the simulated metrics. Also use the population mean, rather than the sample mean Remove Median as the way the data is distributed, it is usually extremely close to mean anyway Calculate frequency table on the fly, rather than creating a large results array first (fixes #32) Completely refactor the response structure of the /api/simulate and /api/simulate/save endpoints for better visibility and extensibility. Added Sentry to API to capture errors (Fixes: #39) Notes This UI overhaul was more focused on navigation, the next one will be more about layout Though it may not look it, this release had a huge amount of behind the scenes changes Since the 2.0.0 branch, I have been using Github projects to greater effect, this means you can watch the project for a specific version to see the currently planned items, and their progress v2.0.0 This one v2.1.0 The next one v2.2.0

[0.3.0] Preset Fighters, Customisable Toughness Ranges, and Snackbars damonhook released this 20 minutes ago Feature Additions Add an import screen that allows users to select a number of fighters to import (fixes #4) For now it is just the Season 1 Warbands (Going to add more very soon: tasks) NOTE: The preset fighters only contain the weapons. no runemarks, art, wounds, toughness, movement, or points will be added. This is not a replacement for cards/ToC Allow users to customise the toughness range used for results (fixes #14) @GuitaRasmus Configure the min/max toughness to generate data for. Leave as Auto to let the API decide How the Auto range is determined: (MIN STR - 1) <---> (MAX STR + 1) UI Added Snackbar notifications (fixes: #7) Deleting Fighter Undo: will re-add the fighter at the deleted position Deleting Profile Undo: will re-add the Profile at the deleted position for said fighter Error fetching stats Retry will re-attempt the API request Importing fighter success Added AoS Statshammer as a Social Button (Footer and About page) Change SVG Text Object -> Path (fixes #16) Use SVGIcon instead of loading through img src

Double Post, sorry

👍I have the configurable toughness ranges planned in for the next release (0.3.0) For the moment, if you put both fighters in, it will compare them at equal toughness levels. It shouldn't be too long and I'll be sure to tag you as soon as the feature is released.

[0.2.0] API Performance improvements and simulations damonhook released this 22 minutes ago UI The Left Navigation Bar on Desktop has been revamped and will no longer scroll with the content. API Instead of generating data per toughness, instead build lt, eq, gt properties. Then map that to the different toughness values (Fixes: #13) This should have no difference in the final result, however, should improve performance greatly If you try and generate data for attacks > 8, switch to a simulation of dice rolls rather than generating every permutation (Fixes: #13) Increased max attacks from 8 -> 15 Added Sentry to API to capture errors (Fixes: #11) Notes Here is a table of the number of permutations as the attacks grow: Attacks Permutations 2 36 4 1 296 6 46 656 8 1 679 616 10 60 466 176 12 2 176 782 336 Because of this it becomes too expensive to get population permutations for attacks > 8. Hence why it switches over to doing 1 500 000 simulations instead. It should be accurate enough as the probabilities are limited to 2 dec. places on the UI anyway

It's no problem 👍, if anything it highlights that I should maybe add a little info dialog to the stats screen explaining how the T-range is determined (similar to how AoS Statshammer has an info dialog for how its simulations work). I can see that it may be confusing as to why the T-range changes depending on the fighters you have (as nowhere do I state how it's done).

Thank you for the feedback. Some info on how the T-range is decided: Since Warcry only cares about Strength <, =, or > Toughness. A S6 weapon will do the same damage to a T4 as it does to a T5. So the way the API decides on the toughness ranges is: lowest STR - 1 <----> highest STR + 1. Solution: However, what I could do is provide an option for the user to provide the toughness ranges they want or use the auto generated ones. Quick mockup here: I've added this as a feature request on Github: https://github.com/damonhook/warcry-statshammer/issues/14

Warcry Statshammer A new sister project (Warcry Statshammer) has been released URL: https://warcry-statshammer.herokuapp.com/ TGA Topic: NOTE: This does not mean that development has stopped for AoS Statshammer. AoS Statshammer will remain my main project, but Warcry Statshammer allows me to experiment and test new features in a much simpler environment. I can then take those learnings over to AoS Statshammer

Warcry Statshammer A tool for calculating and comparing damage outputs for Warhammer Warcry Fighters (also referred to as Mathhammer). The production deploy of the tool is located at: https://warcry-statshammer.herokuapp.com/ Features Average Damage Stats Gather the average damage that each unit is expected to do against various toughness values. This average is a calculated value (not simulated) Probabilities Generates Discrete and Cumulative Probabilities These values are calculated (not simulated) This is done by gathering every permutation of the dice roll(s) and uses that to get a population probability graph Dark Theme Persisitent data between refreshes And more Keep an eye on the Github Releases, or the SubReddit to get notified of new additions Roadmap Features Choose from a preset list of fighters Export PDF Google Drive integration Save / Load Fighters Related Projects AoS Statshammer Provides similar functionality to this, but for Warhammer Age of Sigmar

Note: I have upgraded the AoS Statshammer server to a paid tier, this should hopefully improve the response time of the simulations, and over the weekend I am going to do decide on a higher max limit for the customisable simulations slider. Don't worry, the paid tier is still extremely cheap ($7 pm) so I have no intention of looking at monitisisation plans. As for why I have decided to upgrade the server, I needed the free tier server for a new (sister) project that will be launching very very soon. I will obviously still continue to work on AoS Statshammer, and this will remain my primary project (I still have a lot of requested features to get to). Here is a quick on-the-nose, terribly cheesy, totally unnecessary teaser for this new project:

Yup that's their "atacker" siege trait. While strong, I am kinda meh on it. You are just delaying combat by 1 round (because nobody in their right mind will get into combat t1 with 2+ save mortek). It will give you a bit of a buffer against T1 shooting, which is really handy, and may be really good depending how the game mode plays (gives you time to move up and set up) For me I think I'd have the most fun with SL. Some tasty cav charges with +1 save on first round sounds fun. I'm not sure on the other general siege rules though, so will have to wait and see the impact it will have.

[1.1.0] Simulation Accuracy Configuration damonhook released this 3 minutes ago Additions You can now customise how many simulations (per save) are performed A higher number of simulations will give you more accurate results, however, will increase the load times Added a lot more detail to the About page UI Added Releases to the Footer and Drawer Added the first draft of the new Logo (time to get off the react logo) New Project: coming-soon

Yeah, it would also help to set petrifex apart. Change the +1 save to wound chars of 4+ (as was mentioned earlier), then make Stalkers battleline in PE. This would solidify PE as the "Elite" Subfaction. Maybe Immortis Guard BL in MP, as the subfaction focuses around heroes, so making the hero shield battleline fits quite well thematically.

Ahh you are right, I missed that (going to edit my comment now). Yeah I agree that I hate the way rage is "activated" it is completely out of the OBR players control (which is why I changed it up in my suggestion)

My idea for Ivory Host (along with descriptions as to why). This is a pipe-dream though because something this heavy would never come in an FAQ: Change +1 to hit -> + 1 to wound (we already have too many sources for + to hit) Change the entire allegiance to be something along the lines of: At the start of the combat phase, choose whether your army is calm or enraged, if they are calm nothing happens, if they are enraged, get + 1 to wound but -1 to save (maybe even +1 to hist and +1 to wound, you'll see why below). This also means that you are only weaker in the combat phase, rather than making you more vulnerable in all phases, when you get no benefit This also means you get to control when to get he bonus, rather than relying on getting a unit injured Change the CA from remove the -1 save detriment to "give +1 to attacks characteristic to an enraged" unit Allowing you to circumvent the -1 save penalty means that the bonus can never be made to be worth it, otherwise when you use the CA, the unit becomes too powerful. This removing the circumvent CA means that we can get a stronger benefit Since you also get more control over enraged vs calm, you don't need the CA (though you get no benefit from being calm)

Yes, people want point increases because of PE lists, however, many units are overcosted in other legions (not Mortek of course, they could probably go up to 140 and still be fine). So in order to decrease the other unit costs in other legions, PE needs to be tweaked so that it does not make PE any stronger (Nerf PE, then look at points afterwards). Again obviously not talking about Mortek guard point decrease, that would be silly - I sort of prefer +1 save to units with a wound characteristic of 3+ (so no mortek). This solidifies PE as the Elite subfaction - Ivory host needs a rework, OBR is already weak against shooting, and -1 save makes that even worse. Considering how low of a wound count OBR has, becoming fragile is really dangerous. My idea for Ivory host is too heavy for an FAQ though. (I'll post a comment below). There is just no case where I think +1 to hit is worth the -1 save

Honestly I think it's a bit of all of the above. The long text below is my opinion, I have no where near the experience needed to say I know 100% the answer Due to the fact that, while powereful, OBR is quite an honest army. It is strong through sheer staying power, rather than through shenanigans like teleporting, fight first/last, fight twice, etc. IMO this leads to the following: - You can build against them without hurting your list when facing other armies (it never hurts to have rend/MW). - They seem like a bit of a "gatekeeper army". If you don't know what you're doing, or you don't equip yourself properly, they will crush you with very little effort. But if you have the tools, they're quite manageable (almost like gotrek in a way) - Their low model count (and low total wound count), mixed with a medium speed means there are some scenarios that they definitely struggle with. (the mid speed is probably why the top list was quite cav heavy, and OBR cav is very fast) Petrifex still needs a tweak, even just for the fact that some of OBR units need a little points decrease for other legions (not mortek), but you can't decrease their points with PE in its current state without risking tipping it over the edge. People love extremes, either something is super underpowered, or completely unbeatable. When in reality it's somewhere in between.

I don't mind too much. And I can definitely understand that while it limits our freedom, it gives GW more freedom to create more unique subfactions that may not work / be broken if we could mix. Maybe somewhere in between could work. Where each subfaction could have 3 traits and 3 Artifacts to choose from (that differs between subfactions) . So still somewhat restrictive with a little customization

Note: I had some issues with deploying 1.0.0 that meant I had to put the site into maintenance mode for a few minutes. This is resolved and was due to a 3rd party library [1.0.2] Pin Buggy Library Version damonhook released this 3 minutes ago Fixes Crash on load due to 3rd party library A library used react-swipeable-views released an update (patch version) so bad that it caused anyone using said library to crash on launch... I have pinned the library for now, and I am going to look into alternatives

[1.0.0] Initial Full Release and Typescript Move damonhook released this 2 hours ago · 6 commits to master since this release Additions Added Undo action to delete Unit / Profile Added Rerun button to Simulations screen UI Changed primary colour in the light theme to better match the dark theme one Renamed Advanced Stats -> Simulations to better reflect that they are sample probabilities Added Return button and # simulations to Simulations Screen Added an info dialog to the Simulations screen explaining the 3 tabs Renamed Single tab -> Discrete Renamed Tables tab -> Metrics Added Info page that gives a small brief on the tools goal Added Stats and Info to the Bottom Navigation on Apps Added AppBar to PDF page Lighten info notification in dark mode for better contrast Fixes Fix table scrolling in Simulations screen when on mobile Architecture Moved the entire codebase from Javascript over to Typescript

As usual people seem to boil down 1 overpowered legion (PE with Mortek Guard blobs) to be that the whole army is overpowered. Someone not wanting to play against petrifex elite is understandable, but if they refuse to play the whole army (with other legions), they're just jumping on the hate train and aren't worth playing against anyway

Yes they can. Unless the spell specifies that it only affects a certain keyword (one they don't have). Then, since mercenaries don't get your allegiance keyword, they are not valid target

Note: A quick update on what's been happening over the last week: I have been taking some time to do some project maintenance (tests, docs, storybook, etc.) and have decided to convert the entire code base over to Typescript. I am also adding in various QoL updates (e.g: an undo on the deleted unit/profile snackbar, tooltip, info page, etc. ). It is near completion, and once it is out, I will return to tackling new / proposed features.