NoMaDhOoK

Me too. One interesting suggestion I have seen someone recommend is to change it to something along the lines of: 5+ fight first in the combat phase, 8 or 9+ fight in charge phase (the current ability). Or maybe even always fight first after charges but that may be too strong with the retreat and charge shenanigans

I have no clue how I forgot to add `Ethereal` as a modifier, especially considering that I own and play Nighthaunt. I have released a quick patch to add the Ethereal modifier. [0.8.1] Added Ethereal Target Modifier damonhook released this 8 minutes ago Changes Added Ethereal as a target modifier

[0.8.0] Target Modifiers damonhook released this 14 minutes ago Changes Added Target Modifiers to Average Stats and Advanced Stats. (c.c. Requestors: @Inquisitorsz) Current list: Reroll 1's to Save Reroll Failed Saves Reroll Saves Feel no pain (FNP) Mortal Wound Negation With more to come in the future Added Clear Target button to drawer UI Minor adjustments in order to facilitate the new Target modifiers Added tabs to desktop left side for units and target Added 3rd tab to mobile for target Added a Target summary to the stats tab (side) PDF Added the target modifiers to the PDF Misc Added canonical URL to site Fixes Fixed PDF on mobile chopping titles off of graphs Fixed Weapon Profile not disabling confirm when incorrect modifiers are present This only happened when you re-open the dialog for an existing profile which had modifiers In a future update: I am going to allow you to toggle the modifiers for target modifiers and weapon profile modifiers (as was requested a short while back)

Yeah I realised as soon as I hit send that that's what it is called. Yeah I think he might be talking about falchions. But those are only 3 attacks not 5, so not sure

You can use the petrifex elite command ability to give +1 rend as well Edit: oh right the CA is called Bludgeon I think he means the falchions get to - 4 rend (2 base, + Prec, +bludgeon)

5000 per save currently. I am still messing around with the number, trying to balance accuracy with speed. But unfortunately the number needs to be quite high to handle certain modifier combinations (especially with target modifiers, which I am currently working on).

Yeah. And not having them puts Mortek in a strange balance position. If they get a points increase it would throw off a lot of lists and wouldn't result in them being used less, just means that people have less points for other units (since we don't get much choice in BL). Having more battleline options would give GW more balancing freedom

[0.7.0] Add Cumulative Probability Graphs Changes Add Cumulative Probability Graphs to Advanced Stats screen (cc: @Inquisitorsz) Add Cumulative Probability Graphs to PDF UI Allow users to toggle the X Axis Syncing of graphs in the Advanced Stats screen Next up: Target Modifiers

So we know that Petrifex Elite Mortek Guard are absolutely digusting (honestly that is what makes PE so unfun for many people). What might be better (I might give it a try for casual games) is to lean into the elite part of the name and nerf the petrifex elite ability to "add +1 to save rolls for units with a wounds characteristic of 3 or more" (so everything except mortek) No if only there was a way to make stalkers battleline (I can dream)

Unfortunately Petrifex Elite is still the best option for a Katakros list (as +1 unconditional save for everything else, is better than +1 from Katakros, and even though he can't get the petrifex elite benefit, he will give himself +1 save from his ability). Something to note about Katakros is that he is a buff piece, yes his damage gets better when he is low on wounds, but even at his strongest, he has bad damage for a 500 point model. His strength lies in his plethora of abilities, and in generating 5RDP a round on his own Personally, I am going to be running him

FYI: The fix was released (I just forgot to put a message here at the time)

@Inquisitorsz Found it, it was a bug with the get damage portion of the simulation. It was still getting the average damage (3.5) instead of rolling. This resulting in the tests that I ran (comparing average of sample against population) still pass, even though it was not rolling. When probabilities get way too small, it is possible for them to get lost (rounded out). Looks like I have some more work to do after Christmas. I am going to get the damage fix out so long

Thanks for the write up. I'll take a deep dive into it after Christmas. Simulations are a little harder to test due to the "random" aspect. So there could be something off in the chain Edit: found the bug for this issue. Details in separate reply below The wonky graph could be due to a multi wound profile. Many units get this weird "wavy" pattern when they have a multiwound profile (e.g: 3 damage) along with a modifier that can "sometimes" deal aditional damage. Because it is not cumulative probability, the chance of getting a multiple of the profile (say 3 damage) is higher than a non multiple. I think an option to switch the graphs to cumulative probability may be helpful so that's on my to do list for before the new year

Makes sense. That is definitely something I can look into doing 👍

FYI: I am releasing a quick fix for `Reroll Failed` and `Reroll Ones` with the new simulations (advanced stats) Edit: **Fix Released**

[0.6.0] Christmas Update - Advanced Metrics and Probabilities Changes Added a new screen called Advanced Stats which provides additional stats generated through simulations (cc: @Inquisitorsz, @Kadeton, @Boar) Contains tables with mean, median, max, and variance Contains full probability curve graphs With the option to display reference lines for mean, median, or max This feature is in Beta Add probability curves to PDF UI Added the ability to hover (or touch on mobile) legend items in charts in order to highlight only that series This will also highlight the relevant reference lines if there are any Move from a AppMenu to a Drawer Changed App Bar from fixed -> Hide on scroll Architecture Spawn a cluster of workers for the express server (3 for now, may increase) Add gzip compression to API endpoints Fixes Fixed Chart titles missing from PDF graphs Notes This was a large release with a lot of new, beta, additions. Please do let me know if you have any problems, and Merry Christmas

Don't forget that in most cases, you will be deployed too far away from each other for turn 1 offensive spells. The dispelling maybe. But in most cases, turn 1 isn't a heavy spell casing turn

Still got lots more work to, but here is a sneak peak of the probability graphs that I have working in my dev environment I am hopefully aiming for a release sometime near the end of next week.

@Inquisitorsz, @Kadeton, @Boar I have some good news. Doing simulations was a lot easier than I had anticipated. I have managed to get it working (as far as I have tested so far) and have run the following tests (ensure that the mean of 3000 simulations is within 3% of the calculated "population" mean) I still have a lot more tests to run and frontend work to do, and I haven't even started looking at performance optimisations, but it is looking very promising.

Though that was not the original intention of the website, I am currently working on the ability to run a number simulations in order to plot probability curves, so I guess adding a little roll button to run 1 simulation would be an easy addition if you want it. Currently you can do this through the import / export function (saves as a .json file). In the future I may add the ability to register/login and save that way. Though that is a little further off.

I have released the 0.5.0 version now. As always, please do let me know if there are any issues. Changes Changed order of graphs from [Line, Bar, Radar] -> [Bar, Line, Radar] Added Beta version of PDF export (cc: @Planar) Allow you to add an optional weapon profile name (cc. @Inquisitorsz) UI Added chart titles Added Reddit button to footer Fixes Fix scroll "jumping" on reload of page Notes The PDF is in Beta as I want to get feedback before finalising the design The PDF results are always on a separate page to ensure that they are grouped together This will make screenshots / single page prints easier In the future I will add PDF export settings (e.g: exclude unit data)

The repo is also public so you are welcome to contribute if you want. Either way, I wish you luck Yeah I think I have settled on the simulation route (100 is too small a sample size, so probably 1000). I am then going to do a full probability curve chart, as even variance / standard deviation metrics can be skewed heavily by outliers.

Thanks for the feedback I was thinking of doing this, however, unfortunately there is also the matter of the Exploding, Mortal Wound, and Conditional Bonus modifiers that occur on a specific roll. This introduces another layer of variance. Once the next update (PDF) is out (shouldn't be too long, I'd say I am around 60-70% done with it), I will mess around a bit and see if I can get it working. I agree that the simulation is probably the easiest, and I could try and use parallelism to speed up the generation of the outcomes (Since each generation is independent). Definitely. Another good example for this requirement is the Celestar Ballista, which has a pitiful mean of 2.59 damage against a 4+ save. But this is because it scores D6 hits per hit, resulting in a massive variance (It's max damage is actually 24 damage). Nurgle suffers from this as well with a lot of their damage coming from D6 rolls. Another advantage of using simulations is I could then even plot a full probability curve if I wanted to (Giving a really good indication on the damage spread)

Awesome, thanks. I'll do some more thinking on it as well. I do agree that it would be a great addition (just going to get PDF export done first)

Thanks for the feedback. Here are some responses / thoughts This would be very easy to add, so I will add an optional name field for them I'll look into this, though I'll just have to make sure the UI doesn't get too cluttered I can look into increasing the limit. The limit was also there to avoid cluttering the table too much (especially for mobile). I may look a transposing the table (swap the rows and columns) to see if that helps. Essentially this means the table will grow in the number of rows as the number of units increases (as opposed to growing in the number of columns like it currently does) CC: @Kadeton. Yeah, while average is the best metric to evaluate the performance of a unit over all the possible games it will ever be used in (as it will always eventually average out), you are right in that it doesn't give a good indication of the consistency of the unit within a particular game. After I have got through the other needed changes (essentially a 1.0 release), I do plan on looking at other statistical metrics (range, and std. dev.). Just going to think out loud here in case someone has better ideas: The difficulty with variance and standard deviation is that it contains the sum of all the possible outcomes within a given sample. This means that there are 2 options: Simulate x number of outcomes (between 1 000 and 10 000) and use those outcomes as the sample. Plot all of the possible outcomes (Essentially building a probability tree / event chain). Both of these options are quite difficult (and computationally expensive) due to how modifiers can interact with the chain, especially considering the current method for the average calculation is not done through simulations. It is something I am looking into, though it is probably a ways off, and most likely will not be in the auto-updating graph (like current average is), but rather a separate "Advanced statistics" button that will give you the extra metrics.