PDA

View Full Version : Misfortunehammer



Lord Dan
15-10-2014, 14:23
For a while now I've been kicking around an idea for a game variant designed for advanced strategy training. Having now tested it out a few times over Universal Battle, I'd like to share it with the community.

Essentially it boils down to this: you know how at the end of a losing game you might find yourself thinking "Man, if only my rolls had been better..."? What if you went into the game knowing you would have poor rolls? How would you play differently? The idea is to train yourself to think in terms of strategies that will prevail even with sub-par rolling by playing a game of Warhammer in which your luck consistently fails you.

I call it Misfortunehammer. It plays exactly like a normal game of Warhammer, preferably at a tournament-standard point level, with the following modifications:

1. One player, whoever is trying to improve, is the underdog. The underdog builds his list as normal, including lore selection for wizards, however before the game begins his opponent chooses the spells for each of the underdog's casters. The opponent rolls for his own spells as normal.

2. Terrain is generated and placed normally. The opponent automatically wins the roll offs for table sides, scouts, and (unless they are Bretonnians who have prayed) first turn.

3. During the game, the underdog rerolls all of his successes; including saves, rolls to hit, charges, casting/dispel attempts, leadership tests, etc. Any magic item or special ability granting the re-roll of failures, such as a BSB, Hatred, or ASF, will instead simply allow the player to accept any initial successes. The opponent plays the game normally.

I've played this way three times now, and it's an absolute blast. Going into a game with such low expectations for yourself makes the games far more relaxed, and expecting the worst out of most of my endeavors has begun to shift my playing for the better. I'm becoming more prudent and less hasty, and am forcing myself to look beyond matchups that I "should" win in order to stack them in my favor to the point where I'd win even with horrendous rolls.

Anyway, hopefully you guys will give it a try, or modify it a bit to suit your own needs.

EvanM
15-10-2014, 14:26
Oh my dear god....

WOW! How did you come up with this?

This is really intriguing. I would love to see some battle reports of "oh so now i take my ld 10 test and... fail it. *****". hahaha

Ramius4
15-10-2014, 14:39
Seeing the name of the thread, I naturally assumed you had been watching my games. Imagine my surprise at not being mentioned!

Sounds like a really fun idea Dan. :D

Lord Dan
15-10-2014, 14:48
Oh my dear god....

WOW! How did you come up with this?

This is really intriguing. I would love to see some battle reports of "oh so now i take my ld 10 test and... fail it. *****". hahaha
I multi-task a lot. I usually watch TV, paint, and wax philosophical at the same time, so during some of those painting sessions I gradually came up with the idea. I would love to see some battle reports, particularly from one of the big 3 Youtubers. Malooorian? :D



Seeing the name of the thread, I naturally assumed you had been watching my games. Imagine my surprise at not being mentioned!

Sounds like a really fun idea Dan. :D
Oh, actually "misfortune" is German for "Ramius4". Sorry for the confusion. ;)

Ramius4
15-10-2014, 15:04
This is somewhat similar to an idea my group had years ago. We called it 'the worst army'. Basically, you got to write your opponent's army list.

IIRC our only stipulation is that you had to get command models for each unit. Otherwise it was no holds barred, screw your opponent as bad as possible :p

EvanM
15-10-2014, 15:08
This is somewhat similar to an idea my group had years ago. We called it 'the worst army'. Basically, you got to write your opponent's army list.

IIRC our only stipulation is that you had to get command models for each unit. Otherwise it was no holds barred, screw your opponent as bad as possible :p


oh dear god.... so there were no wizards only heroes tons of tiny units that sucked and a bunch of over priced useless things? oh god thats hilarious.

Ramius4
15-10-2014, 15:29
oh dear god.... so there were no wizards only heroes tons of tiny units that sucked and a bunch of over priced useless things? oh god thats hilarious.

This was during 7th edition, so units tended to be small anyways. And no... There were Wizards occassionally. But they'd be doing stuff like using the Lore of Metal vs. an all Goblin army :p And most characters were mounted on something just big enough to never get a Look Out Sir!

Folomo
15-10-2014, 15:34
I would add that the rerolls have to be taken only when they are above the average. After all, you want to improve the strategic thinking in difficult situations, not un-winnable ones.

Even with this correction, I fear that this idea may train the player to actually play worse, not better.
With this sort of scenario you are basically punishing any sort of risk-taking decision. In an average game, not taking any sort of risk tends to be a really bad plan. Its basically setting yourself to always lose. I don't really know many armies that can win without any taking any sort of risk.
So while you may be "improving" your playstyle on the few games you roll like ####, you are hampering the (most common) games where you roll average or good.

EvanM
15-10-2014, 15:43
I was thinking, what would happen if you played a game of averages? all regular to hit/to wound/saves that have duplicity are taken with averages. So if you get 20 attacks, hitting on 4s, wounding on 4s with no save then youd simply auto do 5 wounds, no more no less.

obviously some of the stuff is too random to averaged out of existence. nevermind. its a weird thought.

Folomo
15-10-2014, 15:48
Maybe the problem you have steams from this:


and am forcing myself to look beyond matchups that I "should" win
What do you consider a matchup you "should" win? Something that on average roll you win?
Or better, in term of %.
- Something that you should win 55% of the time?
- Something that you should win 75% of the time?
- Something that you should win 99% of the time?

I have noticed a lot of people mistake "average" with "should happen". For example, if you need a 4 or less to win a combat, it makes is likely to happen (66% chance) and its on the average (3.5<4). But in reality there is a pretty decent chance of actually losing that combat (rolling 5+).

Look at things from the other perspective. How likely it is for you to lose the combat instead of how likely it is that you win it. Do you feel comfortable with that chance of losing?

Also, bewae of overdoing the reliability too. There is a fine line between too much risk and using too many resources to minimize it.

As a simple rule of thumb, I tend to consider that anything that has more than a 10% chance of occurring as likely to happen.
do I have a 16% chance of not getting that critical spell I need? the it will happen every few games.
Do I have a 25% chance of losing this combat? The I have a decent chance of actually losing it.

IME, reducing that certainty to less than 10% tend to be really "expensive" or impossible.

Lord Dan
15-10-2014, 15:56
You're overanalyzing it, brother. A matchup I "should" win is like pornography: I can't define it, but I'll know it when I see it. ;)

EvanM
15-10-2014, 16:01
how would misfortune hammer work if you were playing skaven? haha i think youd probably lose.... every time. lol

Folomo
15-10-2014, 16:19
I do tend to over-analyze warhammer XD.
Probably why I do so well with TK :p.

I have found out that is shorter to analysis something that to learn it by experience. While you may need 10+ games to learn about the best distance on a stand-off against multiple enemies, a quick analysis will teach you how to manage it. After all, Warhammer IS a game based on statistics and risk-rewards decisions. No real reason to ignore it IMO.

In general, for evaluating things like combat or things that have large quantity of variables, I to do this. I calculate the average, and then I see how far it is from what I need. If I reduce the result by 50% it is around 25% likely to happen. if I increase it by 50% it is 25% likely to happen. Thus I get a rough idea on how what I need it is to happen.
Example: 18 skeleton archers shoot at an eagle. On average they get 6 hits and cause 2 wounds. So I estimate I have around 25% chance of causing 3 wounds, 50% chance of causing 2 wound and 25% chance of causing 1 wound. So, 25% chance of that eagle surviving.

Snake1311
15-10-2014, 16:21
Essentially it boils down to this: you know how at the end of a losing game you might find yourself thinking "Man, if only my rolls had been better..."? What if you went into the game knowing you would have poor rolls? How would you play differently? The idea is to train yourself to think in terms of strategies that will prevail even with sub-par rolling by playing a game of Warhammer in which your luck consistently fails you.


Thats how most of the good players I've encountered play - they base their decisions and plays on suboptimal rolls, so bad luck doesn't bite them in the a*s quite so much when it comes around.

Worth pointing out that there is an easier way to do this through Universal Battle - have done it once by accident. The "Misfortunehammer" player sets his dice to d4s.

3eland
15-10-2014, 16:25
I'm going to try this with my Skaven army.

Bring on the pain (most likely my own)!

enyoss
15-10-2014, 16:31
I quite like this! I guess it's a roundabout way of measuring uncertainty around all those dice rolls, but seeing as doing such a thing mathematically would be impossible in practice, you just carry out a simulation skewing towards poor rolls and use the output to train your poor human guinea pig :D.

I might try this out at some point...

Wesser
15-10-2014, 16:33
Personally I find more joy in setups where I simply go for a goofy setup of some sort.

I've fought an entire campaign as Bretonnia where I could only include peasants (no damsels either). Or how about a Wood Elf army where noone can have a ranged attack?

Monsters stomping you in every game? Maybe pool your monsters together and let your opponent pick an army of monsters. Lessons may get learned.




I wouldn't find much joy in Lord Dan's setup, but the idea has merits....

Karak Norn Clansman
15-10-2014, 16:58
The very name makes me feel comfortably at home with my bad luck on all but armoursaves. Nice idea, Dan!

Andy p
15-10-2014, 17:05
I already play like this in my mindset. It seems only sensible to learn how to manage failure.

The worst players* tend to be those who treat success as a right they deserve as opposed to an outcome they need to engineer.

* 'worst' is actually a misleading term thinking about it. By worst I mean people who I find it unendurable to play against regardless of winning or losing.

Ramius4
15-10-2014, 17:16
Worth pointing out that there is an easier way to do this through Universal Battle - have done it once by accident. The "Misfortunehammer" player sets his dice to d4s.

Oops! Although that method would not work at all in situations where you need to roll a 5+

EvanM
15-10-2014, 18:48
Oops! Although that method would not work at all in situations where you need to roll a 5+

you know how you say you dont like that warhammer is a d6 system when the stats are all base 10? well on universal battle you could easily play with 10 sided dice to see how that went for to hit/to wound and all that.

Lord Dan
15-10-2014, 18:53
have done it once by accident. The "Misfortunehammer" player sets his dice to d4s.

It's even worse when you accidentally roll an artillery dice instead of a D6...

"Okay, needing 3's...10 attacks..."
"..."
"WOAH! Only one miss! Let's see, that's 6...7...8 hits on y- wait, why is there a 10?"

Ramius4
15-10-2014, 19:25
you know how you say you dont like that warhammer is a d6 system when the stats are all base 10?

I wouldn't say that I 'don't like it'. It's just a very curious design decision to use a D6 when everything is done on a 0-10 scale. Using D6's does however serve to reduce variables.


It's even worse when you accidentally roll an artillery dice instead of a D6...

Misfire. Wait what...?!

Urgat
15-10-2014, 19:37
This sounds like my usual games, so... :p
I always play with the notion that my luck is the worst (it usually is), so it wouldn't be too different really.

Ramius4
15-10-2014, 19:48
This sounds like my usual games, so... :p
I always play with the notion that my luck is the worst (it usually is), so it wouldn't be too different really.

I have massive swings of the dice from game to game. You just have to laugh it off and keep on playing :)

On that note, you reminded me of the last grand tournament I played (2003 or 2004?). Had a game vs. Vampire Counts played by a really nice guy named Eric Hagen. On turn one he charges 2 of my 3 Bretonnian Lances with Dire Wolves and both of my units flee off the table. I hadn't even moved them. He wiped me out by the top of turn 3. Anyways, he kept apologizing profusely and he was actually shaking like he was scared I would blow a gasket. I just laughed it off though, and I couldn't help but wonder "what kind of jerks does this guy play against that he'd be worried about my reaction?"

PS. For anyone who has White Dwarfs from that time period, Eric's army was in one of them. It was very heavily converted, and awesome to play against, except for that whole running off the table part :p

Alltaken
16-10-2014, 17:52
you know how you say you dont like that warhammer is a d6 system when the stats are all base 10? well on universal battle you could easily play with 10 sided dice to see how that went for to hit/to wound and all that.
D10's could make a Hell of a more balanced game. Make ws and I more valuable.

Its an interesting idea, I wouldnt play it so extreme though. But I would probably pull my hairs out playing this way

Nkari
16-10-2014, 20:04
For a while now I've been kicking around an idea for a game variant designed for advanced strategy training. Having now tested it out a few times over Universal Battle, I'd like to share it with the community.

Essentially it boils down to this: you know how at the end of a losing game you might find yourself thinking "Man, if only my rolls had been better..."? What if you went into the game knowing you would have poor rolls? How would you play differently? The idea is to train yourself to think in terms of strategies that will prevail even with sub-par rolling by playing a game of Warhammer in which your luck consistently fails you.

I call it Misfortunehammer. It plays exactly like a normal game of Warhammer, preferably at a tournament-standard point level, with the following modifications:

1. One player, whoever is trying to improve, is the underdog. The underdog builds his list as normal, including lore selection for wizards, however before the game begins his opponent chooses the spells for each of the underdog's casters. The opponent rolls for his own spells as normal.

2. Terrain is generated and placed normally. The opponent automatically wins the roll offs for table sides, scouts, and (unless they are Bretonnians who have prayed) first turn.

3. During the game, the underdog rerolls all of his successes; including saves, rolls to hit, charges, casting/dispel attempts, leadership tests, etc. Any magic item or special ability granting the re-roll of failures, such as a BSB, Hatred, or ASF, will instead simply allow the player to accept any initial successes. The opponent plays the game normally.

I've played this way three times now, and it's an absolute blast. Going into a game with such low expectations for yourself makes the games far more relaxed, and expecting the worst out of most of my endeavors has begun to shift my playing for the better. I'm becoming more prudent and less hasty, and am forcing myself to look beyond matchups that I "should" win in order to stack them in my favor to the point where I'd win even with horrendous rolls.

Anyway, hopefully you guys will give it a try, or modify it a bit to suit your own needs.

So you mean you just now realized there is something called odds in a warhammer game, and if you calculate the odds in your head before you call that charge, cast that spell, etc it will help your overall performance, since you then make informed or semi informed choice rather than gut feeling or "oh look, charging here would be cool" way of playing. Each to his own ofc.

Sorry dont want to rain on your epiphany so dont take the above comment as me dissliking your idea.. :P

SuperHappyTime
16-10-2014, 22:38
I think this is all a little extreme. A 2+ Roll would go from a 83% chance of success to 66%. So the method passes/fails based on how many time you get to reroll dice when you fail.

I suggest instead that anytime multiple dice are thrown (such as To Hit or To Wound dice are rolled), you calculate the average number of hits there would be before rolling. The roll occurs and the successes are counted. However for the Underdog, the number of successes cannot exceed the average. Likewise, the opponent's roll cannot be lower than the average. Thus we still maintain some balance (i.e. unit mismatches are still mismatches) while still posing a challenge to the underdog

Lord Dan
16-10-2014, 22:47
So you mean you just now realized there is something called odds in a warhammer game, and if you calculate the odds in your head before you call that charge, cast that spell, etc it will help your overall performance, since you then make informed or semi informed choice rather than gut feeling or "oh look, charging here would be cool" way of playing. Each to his own ofc.
Yeah, I took advanced statistics classes as part of my economics degree. I'm with you, dude. ;)

Still, not everyone can do those kinds of calculations in their head, so I thought this simple alternative might help.



I think this is all a little extreme. A 2+ Roll would go from a 83% chance of success to 66%. So the method passes/fails based on how many time you get to reroll dice when you fail.
Since Nkari insulted my math skills (:p), I should point out that it's actually reduced to 69.4%. *Pushes up glasses*


I suggest instead that anytime multiple dice are thrown (such as To Hit or To Wound dice are rolled), you calculate the average number of hits there would be before rolling. The roll occurs and the successes are counted. However for the Underdog, the number of successes cannot exceed the average. Likewise, the opponent's roll cannot be lower than the average. Thus we still maintain some balance (i.e. unit mismatches are still mismatches) while still posing a challenge to the underdog
I like what you're going for, however I fear it's too complicated for the average gamer. Calculating averages can start to get pretty complicated when you're calculating for things like poison, re-rolls of a specific number (like 1 or 6), killing blow, etc., not to mention the fact that it would become time-consuming in an already time-intensive game.

Re-rolls have their flaws, but it's nice and simple.

SuperHappyTime
17-10-2014, 03:42
Since Nkari insulted my math skills (:p), I should point out that it's actually reduced to 69.4%. *Pushes up glasses*

I like what you're going for, however I fear it's too complicated for the average gamer. Calculating averages can start to get pretty complicated when you're calculating for things like poison, re-rolls of a specific number (like 1 or 6), killing blow, etc., not to mention the fact that it would become time-consuming in an already time-intensive game.

Re-rolls have their flaws, but it's nice and simple.

What we should get agree on is that practice battles should focus on teaching young skulls of mush how to pick their battles, unlike I've clearly illustrated. Also, I should probably go back and take a statistics class or two.

N1AK
17-10-2014, 10:53
For a while now I've been kicking around an idea for a game variant designed for advanced strategy training. Having now tested it out a few times over Universal Battle, I'd like to share it with the community.

Essentially it boils down to this: you know how at the end of a losing game you might find yourself thinking "Man, if only my rolls had been better..."? What if you went into the game knowing you would have poor rolls? How would you play differently? The idea is to train yourself to think in terms of strategies that will prevail even with sub-par rolling by playing a game of Warhammer in which your luck consistently fails you.

I call it Misfortunehammer. It plays exactly like a normal game of Warhammer, preferably at a tournament-standard point level, with the following modifications:

1. One player, whoever is trying to improve, is the underdog. The underdog builds his list as normal, including lore selection for wizards, however before the game begins his opponent chooses the spells for each of the underdog's casters. The opponent rolls for his own spells as normal.

2. Terrain is generated and placed normally. The opponent automatically wins the roll offs for table sides, scouts, and (unless they are Bretonnians who have prayed) first turn.

3. During the game, the underdog rerolls all of his successes; including saves, rolls to hit, charges, casting/dispel attempts, leadership tests, etc. Any magic item or special ability granting the re-roll of failures, such as a BSB, Hatred, or ASF, will instead simply allow the player to accept any initial successes. The opponent plays the game normally.

I've played this way three times now, and it's an absolute blast. Going into a game with such low expectations for yourself makes the games far more relaxed, and expecting the worst out of most of my endeavors has begun to shift my playing for the better. I'm becoming more prudent and less hasty, and am forcing myself to look beyond matchups that I "should" win in order to stack them in my favor to the point where I'd win even with horrendous rolls.

Anyway, hopefully you guys will give it a try, or modify it a bit to suit your own needs.

I haven't tried it, but I'm not sure it would really work to improve play so much as change it to ways that suit that dice mechanic better. Casting fewer spells with more dice becomes better vs more spells with less dice. Certain attacks become better compared to others (breathe weapons don't roll to hit, auto-hit or auto-wound abilities etc), Mark of Nurgle, Fencers Blades gets better compared to saves/wards. Spells like spirit leech, 13th which don't have a 'success' value when rolling to harm become better vs spells like Fireball that do. Undead get a huge bump for being entirely unbreakable, but stupidity gets worse.

Good Warhammer players beat other good Warhammer by controlling risk, and the consequences of taking risks, not by avoiding it entirely.

Lord Dan
17-10-2014, 10:58
What we should get agree on is that practice battles should focus on teaching young skulls of mush how to pick their battles, unlike I've clearly illustrated.
Agreed.



Also, I should probably go back and take a statistics class or two.
They can be a blast for gamers, and extra confusing for anyone else in the same room:

Professor: "So with that, we've found our p-value. What does this say about our null hypothesis?"
Dan: "Professor, I have a quick, unrelated question."
Professor: "Go ahead."
Dan: "Let's say I need to roll a 3+ on ten, six-sided dice..."
Classmate: "Why would you need to roll a 3+ on ten, six-sided d-"
Dan: "Never mind that."

Evil Hypnotist
17-10-2014, 14:19
Awesome idea, this could be exactly the thing I need to start taking tactics seriously. Also many of my opponents have noted on my poor luck in games (I seem to luck out on armour and ward saves but can't hit a barn door in combat - even with Chaos Warriors), so it won't hurt too much to give it a try!

Drumknott
17-10-2014, 22:06
They can be a blast for gamers, and extra confusing for anyone else in the same room:

Professor: "So with that, we've found our p-value. What does this say about our null hypothesis?"
Dan: "Professor, I have a quick, unrelated question."
Professor: "Go ahead."
Dan: "Let's say I need to roll a 3+ on ten, six-sided dice..."
Classmate: "Why would you need to roll a 3+ on ten, six-sided d-"
Dan: "Never mind that."

Hah, sounds fun.

On a (semi) related note, I'd actually love if Warhammer was a d10 system. Skills would be rated out of 10, and to succeed you need to roll equal or below. So a Space Marine with Ballistic Skill of 7 (out of 10) would only fail the roll on an 8, 9 or 10. Now for many of us on whom the Dice Gods hath bestowed low dice rolls, this could be great. I can't imagine it would be overly difficult to redo the To Hit and To Wound tables for d10 either.

Lord Dan
17-10-2014, 22:09
No, the tables would be a breeze. The trick would be finding a way to purchase, store, transport, and roll 20-30 D10's at a time... :shifty:

Drumknott
17-10-2014, 22:16
Well I play a lot of RPGs, I already have a dice bag full of them :D

Ramius4
18-10-2014, 04:10
No, the tables would be a breeze. The trick would be finding a way to purchase, store, transport, and roll 20-30 D10's at a time... :shifty:

I can only imagine the poor shmucks who try to roll that many D10's on a Realm of Battle board.

Lord Dan
18-10-2014, 10:24
I can only imagine the poor shmucks who try to roll that many D10's on a Realm of Battle board.
"Okay, 20 attacks."
"Give me a roll."
"Let's see, I've got...14 cocked dice."
"Re-roll 'em."
"Okay, 11 cocked dice."
"Re-roll 'em."
"Okay, 7 cocked dice..."

Andy p
18-10-2014, 11:16
"Okay, 20 attacks."
"Give me a roll."
"Let's see, I've got...14 cocked dice."
"Re-roll 'em."
"Okay, 11 cocked dice."
"Re-roll 'em."
"Okay, 7 cocked dice..."

Also let's add in the variable that the roller is an elf player.

Lord Dan
18-10-2014, 11:26
Also let's add in the variable that the roller is an elf player.

Right. So double the number of dice, and quadruple the re-rolls. ;)

Andy p
18-10-2014, 14:22
Right. So double the number of dice, and quadruple the re-rolls. ;)

And let's give him a peculiar tick which causes his hand to throw the dice all over the floor and there is a house rule that those which roll off the table have to be rerolled as well.