Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
In general, I certainly agree with the sentiment that "good players make their own luck" by avoiding high-variance outcomes. But this idea that all dice are weighted 100% equally seems bogus to me too. There was a post here a long time ago analyzing Chessex dice -- IIRC, the results involving something like 500 or 1000 rolls of each dice resulted in ~25% 1s. I would not be surprised if this varied from batch to batch.
I found that if I roll in a dice box it feels like I have more average rolls. Perhaps the additional randomization from proper bouncing helps. There's nothing I can do about those single dice rolls though...those are always a butt clencher.
In general, I certainly agree with the sentiment that "good players make their own luck" by avoiding high-variance outcomes. But this idea that all dice are weighted 100% equally seems bogus to me too. There was a post here a long time ago analyzing Chessex dice -- IIRC, the results involving something like 500 or 1000 rolls of each dice resulted in ~25% 1s. I would not be surprised if this varied from batch to batch.
I found that if I roll in a dice box it feels like I have more average rolls. Perhaps the additional randomization from proper bouncing helps. There's nothing I can do about those single dice rolls though...those are always a butt clencher.
Its all confirmation bias, you'll remember the 6's and 1's more than the 3-4.
In general, I certainly agree with the sentiment that "good players make their own luck" by avoiding high-variance outcomes. But this idea that all dice are weighted 100% equally seems bogus to me too. There was a post here a long time ago analyzing Chessex dice -- IIRC, the results involving something like 500 or 1000 rolls of each dice resulted in ~25% 1s. I would not be surprised if this varied from batch to batch.
I found that if I roll in a dice box it feels like I have more average rolls. Perhaps the additional randomization from proper bouncing helps. There's nothing I can do about those single dice rolls though...those are always a butt clencher.
Our casino employed friend can probably tell you this but in Craps (and most dice based gambling games) the roll doesn't count unless you bounce the dice off a surface because otherwise the roll isn't considered a truly random roll.
Sim-Life wrote: Our casino employed friend can probably tell you this but in Craps (and most dice based gambling games) the roll doesn't count unless you bounce the dice off a surface because otherwise the roll isn't considered a truly random roll.
Been playing a lot of MESBG lately and there it is mostly single rolls so you can really notice a trend during a game. Last game I had we drawed in a rather hilarious way and we both agreed that it is good we didn't play 40k the way the rolls were going.
Over the whole game we probably had a rather average distribution of rolls but we both got our 1-2s and 5-6s in very specific instances repeated over the course of the game. But since killing is difficult in the game bad luck in certain aspects isn't nearly as crippling as it can be in 40k, where you can lose half your army if you are rolling below average and your opponent rolls a bit above average.
We had perhaps 60-80 shots from my opponent only managing to kill 2 of his own guys and none of mine in ridiculously bad shooting rolls. But also he had lone moria goblin archers killing Uruk Hai berserkers supported by pikes in close combat multiple times. Extremely swingy game due to die rolls. But a swingy turn in mesbg maybe changes casualties from 5% from each force to an 8-10%/0-2% so you can still have comebacks.
The dice definitely decided that game in his favor since he did a few really bad plays and even though the average roll was probably average what decided stuff was really when each die decided to roll a 6 or not. His got spread out while mine usually came in pairs or triples when one was all that was needed. Usually needed one 5+ out of 2 or 3 dice and quite often got all of those 5+ or none.
So sometimes games can be decided on "bad" rolls but it is not every time you actually see it happen. Most of the time you only think it happens due to various biases.
In 40k so many off the die rolls and their result doesnt have much impact so only those that really stand out or really matter is remembered. Like if you shoot 40 shots that hits on 3s, wounds on 4s and do mortal wounds on 6s people usually only take notice of those that on the second roll were sixes. If we add in a few rerolls we had maybe around 80 thrown dice in total and they might on average have been low but that 1 extra 6 above the average amount of sixes on the to wound roll is all that gets registered and seen as rolling hot. Only 6-10 out of those 80 is registered.
A guy at the club always complains about his dice and even gave away his set after a "bad" game. I like to spectate his games and look at his rolls because his problem isn't that he rolls bad, I haven't ever seen him actually have a bad game when it comes to dice, but that he has no idea what the expected result of a roll should be. The game he gave away his bad dice he rolled above average for almost every batch of dice he tossed during the whole game. The final straw for him was when he "only" made 4 out of 7 saves on a 4+. He usually plays Guard and for some reason expects to hit, wound and save about as well as his most common opponent who is a marine player. So if he have a worse hit % than his opponent then he rolls bad......
When it comes to better tournament players, blame on dice is usually quite rare from my experience. But it does happen from time to time that it was mostly all dice going wrong, Like 3 perils of the warp in a row or multiple short charges all failing etc.
Firstly nice to see you back Karol.
Secondly it sucks that guy screwed up but a sporting injury isn't the same as dice averages so it's not compatible. One game you might roll like garbage and in another you might roll well. Your brain is programmed to remember the bad game more than the good because it made you feel bad and it wants to avoid that situation again. It's not a case of specific instances moreso than it is global averages.
I also like the lack of self-awareness of the person defending Custodes as not OP by using the argument "they're only not OP because I roll badly, but when I roll well they demolish everyone". Read what you just wrote dude.
Thanks,Tough year in general. Preping for end school exam and trying to aquire a spot in a state sports university is no joke, on top of war state, covid etc Had zero time to play or even go online, if I wasn't in school training, I was working at home just to get more mass. Too many guys in my weight cathegory.
The few years spent on w40k finaly tought me, and I think mr Atticus explained it to me the best, that GW doesn't care about balance, rules save for stuff that maybe may impact their stuff in a negative way. They really do think that people will buy new models, just because they are new. And the biggest of it all is that while here this may not be true, it seems to be true all around the world. Or at least in the important markets. I also noticed some paterns among people that are , in general happy with the game or rather GW games. I think that and what happened after marines got their 2.0 codex supplements tought me a valuble lesson about life.
Now, I would of course like codex to be more balanced. And specially for there to not be armies that are take this X unit and nothing else. Because those armies and their players live on a very short timer, and when they get nerfed they disolve. Maybe the way to deal with w40k is to make everything broken, and by that I mean super efficient and super deadly. Games would be faster that is one thing, and book keeping would be less, because of how everything dies super fast. At first glance this could be a bad thing for the crusade, narrative, open etc folk. But they could just limit the builds, the AP, the number of shots, stacking buffs etc. Something they technically already do. In the end I think the expiriance of the game, is more important then the percived memory of how the dice went. Specially as it doesn't account for people who really do remember all their rolls.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
It's my personal philosophy that if I ever blame the dice I stopped trying to learn.
You've never played a game with these wretched pieces of crap, have you?
those seem playable tbh, try the rubber squig dice lol
They're pretty poor. They're hollow, too light & almost universally have a bur on the 5. Result? They roll for At least those squig dice are very visibly not meant to be rolled - if you do use them you've only yourself to blame.
It's my personal philosophy that if I ever blame the dice I stopped trying to learn.
You've never played a game with these wretched pieces of crap, have you?
those seem playable tbh, try the rubber squig dice lol
They're pretty poor. They're hollow, too light & almost universally have a bur on the 5. Result? They roll for At least those squig dice are very visibly not meant to be rolled - if you do use them you've only yourself to blame.
nothing beats my 8th edition thousand sons dice, nice and chunky and them coming in a pack of 20 makes them pretty ideal for fast calculations.
Daedalus81 wrote: ...It's my personal philosophy that if I ever blame the dice I stopped trying to learn.
There are events that can go badly, but did I over commit? Did I gamble on the outcome? Should I have delayed instead? Similar logic applies to poker. It's pretty random, but there's a skill to success...
Semi-related story here: I used to play a Molik Karn assassination list in Warmachine; for the sake of time and trying to stay more on-topic I won't explain exactly what that means, except to tell you that I got good enough at it that I could reliably get Molik Karn where I needed him, and then all I had to do was not whiff either the attack or the damage roll on about seven attacks and I would win the game. While I was playing that I got very angry at the dice all the time, because I knew I was playing exactly correctly and if I lost it was the dice's fault; the realization I came to, in the end, was that I had made a plan that reduced the entire game to that sequence of about seven attacks, and it was entirely my plan that put me in a position where I could easily lose on one bad roll.
In any minis game if you find yourself thinking "I lost because the dice were bad!" what actually happened is that the thing you were trying to do was not as reliable as you thought it was, and you didn't make your plan flexible enough to account for failure.
(The deeper lesson about Warmachine is that assassination is not a strategy, it's an edge-case scenario that only works if your opponent is ineffective at planning to avoid it, but since one of the central failings of Warmachine as a game is that pretty much everything about how it works is an emergent property that you have to play a lot of frustrating games about to reach those profound realizations...)
Daedalus81 wrote: ...It's my personal philosophy that if I ever blame the dice I stopped trying to learn.
There are events that can go badly, but did I over commit? Did I gamble on the outcome? Should I have delayed instead? Similar logic applies to poker. It's pretty random, but there's a skill to success...
Semi-related story here: I used to play a Molik Karn assassination list in Warmachine; for the sake of time and trying to stay more on-topic I won't explain exactly what that means, except to tell you that I got good enough at it that I could reliably get Molik Karn where I needed him, and then all I had to do was not whiff either the attack or the damage roll on about seven attacks and I would win the game. While I was playing that I got very angry at the dice all the time, because I knew I was playing exactly correctly and if I lost it was the dice's fault; the realization I came to, in the end, was that I had made a plan that reduced the entire game to that sequence of about seven attacks, and it was entirely my plan that put me in a position where I could easily lose on one bad roll.
In any minis game if you find yourself thinking "I lost because the dice were bad!" what actually happened is that the thing you were trying to do was not as reliable as you thought it was, and you didn't make your plan flexible enough to account for failure.
(The deeper lesson about Warmachine is that assassination is not a strategy, it's an edge-case scenario that only works if your opponent is ineffective at planning to avoid it, but since one of the central failings of Warmachine as a game is that pretty much everything about how it works is an emergent property that you have to play a lot of frustrating games about to reach those profound realizations...)
I had a post written up about how it's technically possible to get screwed on dice... But then I realized that it was a tangent that added nothing, because I agree with your point.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/03/01 23:06:03
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
Kanluwen wrote: Doesn't speak to much of anything, depending upon who attended the event. There's a lot of weirdly competitive people in NC.
Yes, totally agree. A GT with 75% of the top 20 being exclusively 2 armies is definitely not anything to notice or care about.
A GT in effectively the middle of nowhere, with how many people showing up?
Seriously. How many people actually showed up for 40k? I couldn't find numbers. I did think it was a bit interesting that as of their Open Day 1 summary they had a full 20+ people who were "undefeated".
175 players showed up...so a lot? And "effectively in the middle of nowhere" Cherokee NC isn't really "nowhere" its actually a fairly popular tourist destination thanks to the Casino, not to mention Asheville is about an hour away and so is gatlinburg, another big tourist area and Knoxville is about an hour and a half away. its also in a touristy area of NC where people like to go to vacation in the Mountains. Its definitely not Las Vegas but its got a lot of things to do and see and that is coming from someone who hates NC
But its also a Grand Tournament that has historically drawn large crowds and has players from around the country who fly in to play. So its a fairly important event. For comparison, Adepticon which is heralded as one of the most important Events in 40k tournament scene, in 2019 attracted 258 attendees. So saying a tournament with 175 is irrelevant is kind of disingenuous if nothing else.
SemperMortis wrote: But its also a Grand Tournament that has historically drawn large crowds and has players from around the country who fly in to play. So its a fairly important event. For comparison, Adepticon which is heralded as one of the most important Events in 40k tournament scene, in 2019 attracted 258 attendees. So saying a tournament with 175 is irrelevant is kind of disingenuous if nothing else.
Waiting for Kanluwen to admit he was wrong. Think I'll be waiting a while...
Right..... lack of self awareness. My argument for custodes not being OP was completely ignored actually. I told you to compare datasheets and tell me how they are overcosted and not one person attempted to do so in this thread.
No. We know they're overpowered based on tournament results. Empirically, we know it's true - so if it doesn't come up in the datasheets, there must be some other reason. But you can see it in the datasheets - compare Trajan to anything else in that point range. Or compare Custodes to Bullgryns. Your statement about their points values being fine for their abilities is stunningly ignorant.
Eihnlazer wrote: Since your obviously just looking for some way to turn my words against me and not actually trying to figure out what I said im gonna leave you to your own mess.
Nobody has to turn your words against you, you sabotage your own arguments well enough yourself.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/03/02 01:33:40
This from the guy who chalked up the high win rates of Custodes to people using weighted dice.
I don't play garagehammer and am in fact a tournament player. I likely have alot more experience than you.
This just makes you come off as worse friend. It just makes me think that you're a shyster trying to downplay his faction's strength to get an advantage. Assuming you're not just delusional.
In general, I certainly agree with the sentiment that "good players make their own luck" by avoiding high-variance outcomes. But this idea that all dice are weighted 100% equally seems bogus to me too. There was a post here a long time ago analyzing Chessex dice -- IIRC, the results involving something like 500 or 1000 rolls of each dice resulted in ~25% 1s. I would not be surprised if this varied from batch to batch.
I found that if I roll in a dice box it feels like I have more average rolls. Perhaps the additional randomization from proper bouncing helps. There's nothing I can do about those single dice rolls though...those are always a butt clencher.
Our casino employed friend can probably tell you this but in Craps (and most dice based gambling games) the roll doesn't count unless you bounce the dice off a surface because otherwise the roll isn't considered a truly random roll.
Yep. And my favorite story to tell was at the GT in baltimore in 99 where we saw a guy friday night bedazzle everyone by having people in the crowd call a number and he'd roll it 100% of the time on 2d6.
Every single time.
There are many many people out there that know how to manipulate dice and if you aren't using a dice tray or tower, I guarantee you that people you know are also doing the same type of tricks at some level.
It's my personal philosophy that if I ever blame the dice I stopped trying to learn.
You've never played a game with these wretched pieces of crap, have you?
All bets are off with GW dice.
Which is a product I really don't understand. I mean, all the weird-looking almost illegible army specific dice. What's wrong with just using simple easy to distinguish dice (although I also have it with some DnD dice sets which have colours that just make them impossible to tell at a glance).
I'm not sure GW faction themed dice were meant to be used seriously for general gameplau. They're probably intended to be used as wound or CP trackers and such.
JNAProductions wrote: I had a post written up about how it's technically possible to get screwed on dice... But then I realized that it was a tangent that added nothing, because I agree with your point.
If you want to learn how you can be screwed over by dice*, just play Bloodbowl.
*Or "learn how you will get the bad outcome about as often as stats would suggest but it never feels fair when it does".
I have lost game with custodes and its not because im a bad player. I have played against good opponents but I acctually do roll below average quite often (think 3/5 turns in most games).
Ah yes the "I'm unluckier person than others"
roflmao. Here's the hint. You actually roll same average as every other. If you think otherwise then you ARE in fact bad player.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/03/02 10:54:50
JNAProductions wrote: I had a post written up about how it's technically possible to get screwed on dice... But then I realized that it was a tangent that added nothing, because I agree with your point.
If you want to learn how you can be screwed over by dice*, just play Bloodbowl.
*Or "learn how you will get the bad outcome about as often as stats would suggest but it never feels fair when it does".
I actually had to quit playing Bloodbowl because of this. I know it's not the dice's fault but holy gak I've never been so angry at my dice rolls in a game.
JNAProductions wrote: I had a post written up about how it's technically possible to get screwed on dice... But then I realized that it was a tangent that added nothing, because I agree with your point.
If you want to learn how you can be screwed over by dice*, just play Bloodbowl.
*Or "learn how you will get the bad outcome about as often as stats would suggest but it never feels fair when it does".
First rule at playing Bloodbowl: structure your turn roll as few dice as possible.
JNAProductions wrote: I had a post written up about how it's technically possible to get screwed on dice... But then I realized that it was a tangent that added nothing, because I agree with your point.
If you want to learn how you can be screwed over by dice*, just play Bloodbowl.
*Or "learn how you will get the bad outcome about as often as stats would suggest but it never feels fair when it does".
Translation:
"I really suck at this game and refuse to acknowledge that fact."
JNAProductions wrote: I had a post written up about how it's technically possible to get screwed on dice... But then I realized that it was a tangent that added nothing, because I agree with your point.
If you want to learn how you can be screwed over by dice*, just play Bloodbowl.
*Or "learn how you will get the bad outcome about as often as stats would suggest but it never feels fair when it does".
Translation:
"I really suck at this game and refuse to acknowledge that fact."
No, Tyel is making a very different statement from the other poster.
It's my personal philosophy that if I ever blame the dice I stopped trying to learn.
You've never played a game with these wretched pieces of crap, have you?
All bets are off with GW dice.
Which is a product I really don't understand. I mean, all the weird-looking almost illegible army specific dice. What's wrong with just using simple easy to distinguish dice (although I also have it with some DnD dice sets which have colours that just make them impossible to tell at a glance).
To be fair to GW, ever since they switched to whomever is making the Horus Heresy legion dice, their dice have been really good. I think all the dice post-necron codex have been simple pips with a symbol on the 6.
Their only "flaw" (aside from being a little more expensive than other custom dice) is that they have rounded corners and recessed pips, but that's just me being overly picky. Sharp corners cause better randomization on the roll, but that's assuming you're using a proper surface like felt or mousepad material--think casino dice at a craps table.
The dice before that were all pretty much just collectors' items, but they did look pretty sweet despite their lack of functionality.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/03/02 19:39:25
Dai wrote: This is why i dislike miniwargaming battle reports, so they dont get out of camera view they basically just drop the dice.
It's a wonder batrep channels don't have dice towers considering most stop the dice from wandering out of camera shot and can be used easily with one hand.
