Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

gjnoronh

Members
  • Content Count

    238
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

100 Celestant-Prime

1 Follower

About gjnoronh

  • Rank
    Protector

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. gjnoronh

    Base - squared to rounded

    Old skeletons ans zombies are on 20mm squares which are probably 20-22 mm in orthongally and 28ish diagonally If you like the current basing job I'd suggest what I've done in the past clip the beveled portions off non slotta base squares and trimmed the corners and then glued that to the top of a round. You can use squares for non competitive play (and competitive play in the right tournament pack) the issue is you may fit more attacks in with squares then yo u might with rare. I'd suggest 'fudging it' until you rebase by turning your models diagonally when piling in - that diagonal width is about right for the 25 mm rounds.
  2. gjnoronh

    Help with Doubles Events Rules

    I'd say though (and it may not be what you want to hear) is decide what your crew want and build the event rules that way. If you want no holds barred crazy interactions go for it but the power level is going to ramp up from standard AoS because of out of army synergies. If you want to keep the power level and potential rules interactions at or below the standard AoS 2K game then restrict inter army interactions. Doesn't matter what GW says is official build the rules pack you guys would think is fun.
  3. gjnoronh

    Realmslayer (possible spoilers)

    The interaction here was classic and my favorite Teclis novelization https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/860009.Giantslayer
  4. gjnoronh

    Help with Doubles Events Rules

    Canhammer podcast's last cast was about Doubles Tournaments and with some specific comments on rules sets for an upcoming event. Made some good points on unintended power level issues. I think they make a good argument for just saying 'the two armies rules don't effect each other at all' as there is a lot of variance on how warscrolls are worded for similar abilities that effect 'friendly models' vs 'friendy beasts of chaos models' for example. That has a big difference on how powerful combos can be for a doubles event. http://www.canhammer.ca/
  5. gjnoronh

    Running tournaments for AoS

    Yeah depends on where you are doing it. I'm assuming at a store. My suggestion is turn the entry fees into store credit and turn it into prizes. What ratio of the entry fees the store is willing to use as store credit is up to them but there is a good argument to be made for making it 100% of entry fees. Store actual cost is closer to 55% of retail, and players tend to spend more then their store credit to get something they want but wouldn't have otherwise bought. Don't commit to any specific dollar/item at all it's just trouble if you get a low turn out. Ask players if they want to do best sports, best painted best general or something else. The We are the Neon events tend to feature some very cool non standard awards like most generals or behemoth's slain and the like that can be achieved by someone even in the loss.
  6. Me too it's been fun (and sometimes frustrating ). I have the sense you are chasing something pretty esoteric in your framing of the gaming world. I had thought over the last few days we could do this easier in a phone call or preferably over a beer. If you are in the US or Eastern Canada I'd look forward to sharing a cold one with you and some of our other participants in this thread! Go look at that Blood Bowl math (and the chess math) when you are thinking about your GUNK math. There's a wealth of data there that's had a lot more careful long term parsing then AoS has (and I would probably as a bit of nihilist say AoS has too many highly random factors to make it able parsed to an in depth level. But I know you are a devoted believer in the parsing. We haven't even talked about Realm Rules and expectations of approximate value.) As a scientist who understands your inquiring mind (I think) I would say the key generalizable take home is to understand and carefully delineate your underlying assumptions when you are trying to figure something out and remember how it effects the accuracy of your model when you try to extrapolate it to other situations.
  7. @Lemon Knuckles and @JPjr it's been a fun conversation. Lemon I think fundamentally all wargamers think points should reasonably correlate with expected value on the table top. Otherwise on what other basis should we be using them for list building with a goal of building fairly 'balanced' lists (read armies that have reasonably similar expected tabletop 'value'.) If there is no correlation between points and value why use them for list building (as opposed to wounds, or colors, or calculated total base surface area etc.) Wargames where you have the ability to build your own list are built on the assumption points are a reasonable approximation of table top value. Your hardline stance against that is pretty mystifying to me. When you are using GUNK to looking for points efficiencies vs value you are trying to find places where you get a little more then expected value for the points investment. When you talk about people suggesting a unit should be 20 more or less points they are saying value doesn't match points as well as it should (and Gunk to calculate value seems to suggest they are right) why are you parsing how that correllates to Gunk if you don't think value and points have any correlation. I get it on a micro level (a single table top moment or in a game) there is no correlation. But in the context of list building for a wargame (which is when we actually use point values) we want things to generally have a reasonable relationship between expected tabletop value and points. Otherwise we get to a situation of uncomfortable imbalance the 'broken army' or the 'broken obvious unit choice' which makes gamers sad (because we can't/won't all just switch to the new hotness unlike in say a card game) that's the Negative Play Experience often in Wargaming. There are tolerance levels on the accuracy of points vs value but this kind of game assumes there is a reasonable correlation.
  8. Yeah I shared it at the top of the page. It's a good read and suggests if you read carefully the math is complex and context dependent.
  9. Yeah that article has started an interesting discussion amongst some event organizers for AoS. To what extent should grand tournament rules sets cater to the guys who are 'serious players' who are travelling the nation/globe competing in the largest events and to what extent should it be for the guy who is going to his first large tournament. I'm of the mind where AoS is now our primary focus should be the latter new player group while giving the highly competitive group plenty of room to show off their skills and compete against other top players meaningfully. In context of this discussion it's expect a lot of attendees to be Man B/C, make sure Man C doesn't get scared off and quit or drive his car into the wall and cause a pile up, and give Man A room to try and outrace the best of the best on a fast but safe track. I know tournament players is a very very small portion of my personal local community. And high end serious tournament players is an even smaller number. For my local commmunity I would guess it's probably 5-6/100 for the first group and 3/100 for the second. Those number derived from my experiences running a large scale tournament that draws from people driving 10-12 hours to get here but out of my locals I get a very limited section of the guys I know are playing.
  10. My friend you may know it and I may know it. "Context matters in evaluating how effective something is in a wargame. " There are others who have been vocal in this thread who think we can just do rough math based on unit stat lines to get more accurate points then GW is currently publishing while specifically ignoring easily identified contextual factors like in army synergy. There is no way of getting perfectly accurate value to reflect all individual tabletop situations. There are ways manufacturers choose to determine points that are roughly accurate for most table top situations based on their assumptions on how the game will probably be played (and sometimes clearly roughly inaccurate) what size, what skill, what terrain, etc. For GW (and AFAIK other manufacturers I am aware of) it appears to be rough guess and playtesting tweaks and then community feedback. That's not a perfect model because say a typical level of 100 playtest games by playtesters (specific skill levels, degree of competitive/inventive personalities, and terrain/point levels) pre army release won't pick up everything that thousands of real world games in diverse environments will. GW has the volume of players to have many many many times the playtest number of games played in the real world the first weekend after an army book is released. Best guess and playtest isn't perfect. Community feedback adds accuracy but is imperfect as well as loud but factually incorrect groups may unduly influence the process. I am simply arguing I don't believe we can use simplistic math to get to high degrees of accuracy on points. More explicitly to get a more accurate mathematical derivation of "correct" points then the current system you are going to have to come with a model that includes more then unit stat lines and flat values for a given buff in all armies irrespective of expected synergy. Particularly if your mathematical model starts with best guess and is adjusted by playtesting. Both of which data sources the model maker has already deemed intrinsically unacceptably inaccurate to give us points values. You can get rough math at best which probably isn't more accurate then what we have now. You aren't arguing (I believe) for a simplistic math model to determine 'accurate' points (and in fact have said your goal for math has nothing to do with balance/accuracy) but that has been the argument I've been responding to in this conversation. So why are we disagreeing?
  11. Yeah there is a lot of accumulated remarkably well analyzed data in the Blood Bowl world in a much more limited complexity game system. And there is a test environment where you can do tweaks and collect playtest data from thousands or more games in a well defined environment. There is a wealth of data on how player skill level (ELO and GLICKO ratings) effect outcomes and how that is effected by the list they are playing in any given head to head match up. That's a pretty amazing data basis to do math from and even then it's still best guesses and playtests that drive point cost adjustments rather then mathematically derived formulae. @Lemon Knuckles that comment on Blood Bowl says to me context matters and experienced gamers in a stable well analyzed system know it. Some teams also get better in different skill package formats even at the same TV or under specific rules sets for the events. If points were a universal mathematically derived certainty that stuff shouldn't matter. The ups and downs of whats good at different Blood Bowl Team Values argues those points relationship to actual value is actually context dependent. The game is largely balanced (intentionally unbalanced mind you!) to work as intended around low TV teams in a league environment and not other environments like online matchmaking play where Team Value similarities drive matchmaking. And again variance in matchmaking has defined data on how that effects performance.
  12. When you make a decision as a player on where to spend your points you are doing your best guesses on what you think something will be worth you (value) The Maserati in real life and particularly in this case has it's cost driven in particular by perceived value to the customer. I could charge my daughter $3000 US for a Maserati (good value for someone with a license) to her it's worth nothing. Car brands (and other brands) charge above their cost to produce how high depends on their perception of brand value to the customer. In AoS the + 1 to hit for khorne keyword only models in 8 inches has some perceived value to a Khorne player and almost none to a Wanderer's player (A wanderers keyword+1 to hit might have a different value). The intrinsic components used to build it (stat line the presence of a AoE buff) doesn't matter to the user as much as the perceived value in the context of their army list and strategy. How that value compares to the points (resources) they have to allocate to obtain it is how folks decide what to put in their list (amongst other factors in the AoS world like cash cost, emotional investment, appearance factor, theming, emotional attachment to the story line etc.) Back to the Fulkes discussion - how that unit choice synergizes in the context of the army (outside of highly variant Open play we we don't expect Khorne models in a Wanderers list!) matters. As you are clearly heavily influenced by Magic I read this earlier today and thought it was pertinent to our discussion about Man A, Man B, Man C and whom the designers are designing for. (Yes we could design for all three, but in Magic they appear to have made a choice.) https://adjameson.wordpress.com/2018/12/04/an-open-letter-to-cedric-phillips-gerry-thompson-and-the-pro-magic-community-at-large/
  13. Sure here's a very brief overview of the history https://www.thenaf.net/2017/05/tiers/ Tournaments can either choose to incentivize lower tiers by providing various bonuses to them (an approach used in the WFB world at times) or choose not to ('unadultered rules' blood bowl) really up to the TO. GW has taken back rules writing from the player base (though there may be input we're unaware of) so I don't know if they are using objective win rates to help guide the minor recent rules tweaks they have done in the BB 2016 era. They also used data from Cyanide (see below) for their BB 2016 rules set I believe. There are three large data sets I'm aware of 1. FUMBBL a longstanding free online platform to play Blood Bowl used by the Blood Bowl Rules Committee particularly to my understanding. Allowed creation of test team rules that they could watch how it plays. 2. NAF tournament results - almost all tournaments in the world submit standardized results to the NAF these can provide rankings of players and some fancy data for in depth analysis as below. https://www.thenaf.net/rankings/ 3. Cyanide which runs two (maybe 3 depending on how you count it) of online Blood Bowl in their proprietary software with many many many matches. There current season IIRC has 30,000 registered teams. That data is largely non public except when they choose to publish something. In the post BBRC era there is a lot of pretty nice statistical analysis still being done particularly off the NAF data set. Here is a 17 page multiyear thread (starts in 2013) with ongoing math analysis of tournament results. http://www.talkfantasyfootball.org/viewtopic.php?f=81&t=40863&start=240 Here's a nice overview :https://public.tableau.com/profile/mike.sann0638.davies#!/vizhome/NAFGames_0/RaceGridNumbers You can do some pretty cool things playing with the data set Mike who builds those analyses puts out various analyses as the mood strikes him (specific rules sets for example he published one just looking at games played under the rules set being used for the 2019 world championship) An overview of a lot of his recent publications is here: https://public.tableau.com/profile/mike.sann0638.davies#!/ That being said one interesting thing that's understood in Blood Bowl data analysis is that at different levels of Team Value (in the AoS world points) it's very clear some teams become much much better or much much worse. What hits a certain desired 'power goal' at the standard game level doesn't work as initially intended at higher levels. Because Blood Bowl has a team 'growth' system built into the rules set (for both league and to an extent tournament play) it's not unusual to have games at high Team Values.
  14. Sorry I missed or forgot that point. I think that's a lower bar for balance then I'd set - but really we're pretty close to each other. Aside from how we think of value vs points But I appreciate your last post on points vs value. If points don't reflect value at all then how do players decide where to spend their points if they aren't projecting value (in the context of their planned strategy and other choices.) I'd argue for balance it's a problem not just when Rock beats Paper Scissors Spock Lizard but also when Lizard beats no one more then 30% of the time, or when Rock beats Scissors, Spock, Lizard and only loses to Paper some of the time. How much of a problem depends on the tolerance level for imbalance in the player base. You are focusing on strategies in your Alpha Strike example. I think the concern for players is the Army Book rather then the strategy (though some books favor certain strategies by design) because if you can take your $1000 of minis and several hundred hours of painting and do an alternate strategy effectively you aren't going to be too worried if X strategy is better then Y. But if you can't take your investment and be competitive that makes players angsty. Unlike a lot of game systems it's much harder in AoS (Because of the time/money and resulting emotional investment) to say 'this faction isn't good I'll switch" other smaller investment games like Blood Bowl people don't get angsty when some teams are just bad and others are very good (in fact a priori the rules are designed to created tiered win rates in Blood Bowl backed by large scale data sets from online play.) I'd disagree that building a points system for units don't make assumptions about user skill. If we assume the average player is going to drive the Maserati into the lake then there is no reason to cost the Maserati more then the rusted Jalopy. In your analogy getting the points accurate ends up being more quantum phenomena then it is classical math. Deciding we want to use classical math to solve a quantum problem probably isn't going to work out well. Someone convinced they can use classical math to solve a quantum problem may be the one being "stubborn and dogmatic." (By the way I'm not arguing for quantum phenomenon just that it's a "Big Data" type problem to get the math highly accurate for a very complex set of interactions not a limited data approach.)
  15. Bingo that is more or less the point I made earlier in the thread about how user skill can make it harder to determine if the user perceived value is a correct representation of the accuracy of the point value ascribed to a unit. Those three users might have very different perceived values of a Maserati vs a 30 year old truck. Note some units and armies have that lake/dessert/Autobohn learning curve and some do not. For a lot of units that skill variance won't matter in how we perceive value but for some it does. That's the point I made on Frenzied units and Tomb Kings in previous editions and Stradivarius violins and my 10 year old daughter earlier. The majority of AoS players (total globe) are probably around Man C (for purposes of this example even if it's not quite fair to most of us) People who are intensively looking into rules balance and reading forums to get tips are probably around Man B.The guys consistently at the top of large GT's are Man A. (Or you could pretend Man C is the average driver, B is someone at the peak intersection of reflex time and driving experience curves and A is a professional race car driver) Your underlying assumption of the user skill (Man A, B, C) is going to effect how you calculate 'accurate' points. That doesn't mean the points should change based on skill level of player but you have to recognize that your assumptions on 'presumed user skill' as a variable effect what the 'right' points value of a unit should be. Same issue with list design and synergies. You make assumptions in game design based on how synergystic people will make their list and how carefully they will read their local meta. If a list fielded is below that presumed level of synergy/meta awareness it's likely going to be less effective then one at or above the presumed level of synergy. On the point of Meta and Terrain and how it effects perceived value. If the designerrs assume everyone is going to be driving on the Autobohn but local tables are actually far more often Lakes how we should value a Maserati vs a canoe may be different then the designers expected. Mind you Lemon you have said Gunk isn't about balance - but I don't think you've explained what balance is for you. I am not saying Accuracy = Balance. I do think accuracy helps us achieve balance. And again for someone like Fulkes and for me the goal from points we ascribe to units is probably balance. To be clear I'm not saying perfect accuracy is the only acceptable goal, or that perfect balance is. I am saying (repetitively) a math based analysis a highly chaotic and largely incomplete data set that ignore synergy/expected utility (and whose inputs are best guesses and playtesting) is probably not going to end up with more accurate results then best guesses and playtesting. If your goal is balance. If your goal is consistency sure you can get there.
×