Search Results
Search results 120 of 508.
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.
Fellow T9A gamers, it's finally time for the annual balance update. Not a moment too soon! Find all information about it in our news.
The latest issue of the 9th Scroll is available! You can read all about it in the news.

Quote from rambage: “Quote from Nicreap: “and that misfire is only take some wounds. Next turn you are guaranteed to be able to shoot with whatever survives the misfire. That's not true of the current weapon teams, which can lose their ability to shoot the following turn, or for the rest of the game (which kills them so they can't be chaff). So unlike normal heavy duty shooting, short of killing it, nothing will keep it from shooting every single turn. ” Currently weapon teams have a 1/32 misfir…

And even rolling a d3 Quote from JimMorr: “Please note however that weapon team group does not have the firepower of a warmachine. It is not even medium shooting in case of rotary guns or naphata thrower. ” 6d6 S4 ap2, or 12d6 S4ap2 at short range isn't as good as a warmachine? or 6 area 3 toxic hits? or 6 full flamethrower hits? Which one of those doesn't have the firepower of a warmachine? Because what I see is teams that can provide more consistent fire power than a warmachine.

Quote from JimMorr: “Quote from berti: “You realized that there is no other misfire? So no may not shoot anymore... Not shoot this and next turn or loosing a wound. And this happens in 16.666 percent chance on warmachines. ” What do you mean? I have 3 models firing. Each can have mishap. Each is resolved on its own. Right? ” and that misfire is only take some wounds. Next turn you are guaranteed to be able to shoot with whatever survives the misfire. That's not true of the current weapon teams, …

The fact you don't have a ton of data this year doesn't change the fact you are accepting you are wrong on the placement of 5 armies, which seems kind of counterproductive to the goal of increasing balance. What it does provide, is an excuse to keep changing things every year though. And considering that has been the projects driving goal for a long time, I can't argue with it, it's just not the approach I would have taken.

Quote from arwaker: “Now I'm curious. Not having seen the latest data. What is the reason for this miscategorization? ” It's a byproduct of using only a single standard deviation to define your data. Since the confidence is only 66% that the reported mean value actually falls within a single standard deviation. So for 16 army books, the expected outcome for each data report is on average 1/3 of the armies (or 5) will fall outside the bounds defined by that single standard deviation. So 11 armies…

Quote from arwaker: “To sum it up a bit more positive: The exact method of how to calculate the size of confidence interval does not matter that much, because the differences between the different methods are in the range of 10%. It only affects how certain we are with the statistics. ” True, the fact 5 of the armies are going to be miscategorized is much more important

Quote from Pikmen: “The changes by itself are good, but I don’t like those related to the size of the unit. In my opinion they would lose a great deal of mobility because of that. Personally, I would like it better if they could be cheaper and weaker so that you can play more units. That would emphasize the feeling of the swarm for me when they are not so clustered together. I like the Overcharge (as for the Dreadmill and the Lightning Cannon) but not the misfire. This rolling as a ‚punishment‘ …

Quote from Casp: “Back to the spoil; It seems a good idea. But i think LAB team should find the right balance, between offering the swarm feeling, and not add too much model. Because first people could be a bit annoy to need to buys too much model, or carry 3 cases to go to a turnament But also because some of us are afraid of the RPS direction LAB start to increase. Get a swarm feeling is really cool. But it should be managable by elves army, without need to buff too much elves. This will requi…

Quote from Casp: “Quote from arwaker: “I know, I'm always the guy suggesting rules that are disadvantages...you can stone me to death, but... I just have to suggest: What about an army wide rule that gives some kind of disadvantage against flying units? I somehow feel this would fit to the vermin army. We have no flying units ourselves, I think we are the only army. And we have this banner that really shows how scared those little rats are of flying threats. Not sure what exactly the rule could …

Quote from Njaaa: “Quote from Nicreap: “Quote from Njaaa: “Now they cost with Def 3 & Res 3... 200 pts + 5 pts/extra model 25–60 models With Def 2 & Res 2... What should we like to see then... 175 or 150 pts with +4 or +3 pts/extra model? ” Considering they also cut combat rez from wounds in half I would guess 4pts per extra, That is still a nice reduction in cost.The real question is will spears be free and trading to shields cost points now that the DWS is so low? ” For a bare unit of 45 RaA i…

Quote from Njaaa: “Now they cost with Def 3 & Res 3... 200 pts + 5 pts/extra model 25–60 models With Def 2 & Res 2... What should we like to see then... 175 or 150 pts with +4 or +3 pts/extra model? ” Considering they also cut combat rez from wounds in half I would guess 4pts per extra, That is still a nice reduction in cost. The real question is will spears be free and trading to shields cost points now that the DWS is so low?

Quote from arwaker: “Maybe there is a confusion. I doubt that a sample of tournament placement results has ever been looking like a normal distribution. Maybe there has been another analysis with game point statistics (020), which I think would pretty much be normal distributed. But how should tournament placements be normal distributed, while each place must occur exactly once? Normal distribution would require more people in the middle of the tournament ladder than at the edges. Like for exam…

Quote from arwaker: “The test for estimating the nature of distribution was done several times, and it showed up that they are best explainable with some kind of flat ARCTAN (or not infinite heaviside) shape distribution (the flatter the better balanced the army). It is far from normal distribution, but tbh if thinking about it for a while, this is obvious. ” I was on the DA team roughly around the same time as you, and for 2 consecutive reports, the data was statistically indistinguishable from…

Quote from Vamp87: “Quote from Nicreap: “Quote from Vamp87: “Maybe you are confusing standard deviation, variance, and standard error? Here, the variance is 1/12 (not 1/\sqrt{12}); the standard deviation 1/\sqrt{12}; the standard error 1/\sqrt{12 N}. Finally 1/\sqrt{12 N} is about 1/\sqrt{4 \pi N}. He said he can't quite remember the full calculation and gave you us a (reasonable) simplified version that yields a virtually identical numerical result. Isn't that okay? ” They stated it was the sta…

Quote from Vamp87: “Maybe you are confusing standard deviation, variance, and standard error? Here, the variance is 1/12 (not 1/\sqrt{12}); the standard deviation 1/\sqrt{12}; the standard error 1/\sqrt{12 N}. Finally 1/\sqrt{12 N} is about 1/\sqrt{4 \pi N}. He said he can't quite remember the full calculation and gave you us a (reasonable) simplified version that yields a virtually identical numerical result. Isn't that okay? ” They stated it was the standard deviation, which is why I provided …

Quote from arwaker: “For estimating the error of mean, the Standard distribution of the taken sample should only be used when there is absolutely no information of the statistic population available, because often it is a bad approximation (because of possibility of just randomly having badly distributed sample). ” Did you actually perform the tests to validate that assumption? Because in the early data collection, if you performed the statistical tests to see if the distribution obtained was an…