Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About punkUser

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

595 profile views
  1. Been a little while but got a chance to do a few updates: Fixed issue with adding non-blank results and Heroic where it would sometimes use a non-optimal ordering Added plasma torpedoes (assumes there is always a shield to remove) Added Saw Gerrera crew (will always eagerly use) Added Finn pod (add blank or add focus) More stuff coming including gas clouds (blank -> evade) but it implies some non-trivial changes to the logic since it is the first effect that makes blanks potentially "better" than focus results.
  2. Not to belabour the other point too much, but for many of the things that end up needing FFG clarification, none of the rulings are really "wrong", it's just FFG arbitrarily decided something different later and that's fine. It's a minor point but fear of being "wrong" and the community reading more into these rulings than the effective dice rolls that they are has a chilling effect on things like marshalls and the community groups making necessary rulings in the first place. Like there's still stuff we don't have *any* rulings for because everyone is too scared to be "wrong" later and that's entirely missing the point in these FAQs... Ultimately it's fine with me if some tournaments rule Padme one way and others differently. It's better if the community agrees on either way in advance. It's the best if FFG eventually clarifies in the rules and/or an FAQ. In none of these cases does it really matter if the ruling at each step is consistent with the previous one. /soapbox
  3. This is the root of the disagreement - you're adding additional English meaning to the definition of "modify" in the rules. Perhaps that is intended, but perhaps it is not. Certainly no one has explained to me (a fluent English speaker! :P) how "spending" is "modifying" a result either, but the rules say that it is so cool I guess. Pretty sure he was telling you the hyperbole is unnecessary... and I'll add condescension to that list I guess Clearly a bunch of us have come to different conclusions on this one, so it needs clarification one way or another. The way the rules are written now I'd definitely rule it the same way as @Brunas if it came up, and I came to that conclusion independently. A bunch of others would rule it the other way. Being charitable, I'm assuming no one has a vested interest in either ruling this time around because indeed it's somewhat edge case and I don't think any of us are flying Padme anyways... Thus let's just submit it to both FFG and the judge Illuminati and see what they say - cool? As @Brunas noted both will make arbitrary choices, attach arbitrary "justifications" to them to make it sound like anyone could have reasoned it out and one side will arbitrarily declare their reasoning was correct. And so it goes...
  4. I'm in the "adding a [X] result" is pretty clearly modifying an [X] result according to the rules. You guys are getting hung up on the word "modify" but if you just read the logic as laid out in the RR, it's no different than how it defines "spending" (or changing, or rerolling) an [X] result. I agree that the english is non-intuitive, but it's actually exactly the same as for spending. Even if you try and carve out some weird exception wherein you're adding a die that has a QUANTIUM. SUPERPOSITION. of possible values that then gets set ("changed"... weird) to a focus result, it's the same thing. Since the rules don't specifically call out what "modifying an [X] result" means - but we know how it works for the other effects - it's pretty safe to assume that a referenced result as part of "adding" falls under the same rules. tldr. the rules as written are pretty clearly that adding a focus result counts as "modifying a focus result", despite it being weird new territory. I have no idea if this is what they intended - we should ask.
  5. Yeah I've been confused by this as well. Hux could be free and it would still be a non-trivial decision when to use him due to the stress aspect. Another comparison is probe droids or Jendon... I can get my entire list locks on stuff reliably with either of those, and both cost less than 6 points. I can only assume people are thinking of 1.0 Hux where it only stressed the ship he was on. With it stressing *everything* I just don't see the apparent value, even when you can coordinate before doing a (now predictable) blue.
  6. Note that passive sensors doesn't work with advanced SLAM though... you get your stress and then can't perform the lock action when you activate. Also you probably want some sort of way to toss focii to your torp carriers. I think people are going to quickly discover how meh single modded torpedoes feel
  7. I agree, but I also don't think non-Hate infiltrators are worth their current costs. I'm fine with erring on the safe side for a bit and hopefully seeing some play out of the non-force ones though.
  8. Sounds like Alex read the article at least And certainly reasonable replies.
  9. Yeah I mean, internet and all... that said it has actually been less freak out than I was expecting TBH
  10. To be clear, I agree with you here... there's no reason to freak out! I hope the article doesn't come off that way when reading it because that was not the message. The suggestion about "considering" sharing dice "at higher levels of competition" is just a suggestion to get ahead and mitigate any potential future issues. People may or may not be abusing this much today (I agree that I doubt they are doing it well although we know some are trying), but the unfortunate effect of publishing this research is that it does give some direction to how one might do it more easily if properly motivated. Right, as I noted elsewhere after "trying out" sharing dice for a few months I don't think I'll go back even if the dice were perfectly fair. It's both simpler and there's less complaining about dice. If it were some big burden to share dice I agree the results don't make a strong argument that we should do it anyways, but it's arguably simpler to share than to not share One of the few win/wins in the game IMO. I don't imagine it matters a ton. Dice have to be heavy enough to roll/tumble enough given a "reasonable" initial velocity/angular velocity. Light dice just don't feel as satisfying to roll which is why I mentioned it. With 100% infill the 3D printed dice still feel slightly lighter than conventional ones but I doubt it affects their performance much (indeed the indication is that they are more accurate if anything, but that's likely due to more consistent shape). The risk there would be that you emphasize any shape error. Filled dice are likely easier to manufacture, have less of a chance of having highly skewed centers of gravity and are likely more durable for equivalent weight as you noted. In any case with consumer 3D printing it's not really an option to make the "shell" denser per se without a different material. PLA is fairly light so the densest you can get is 100% infill. (effectively the whole thing is the shell). Would be interesting to see people follow up with more tests to nail down the specifics of all of this even better. I do intend to test some Gravity Dice when I get my hands on them in any case which will add another set of interesting data!
  11. I mean we all knew it was going to start with X-Wing ultimately, right? What else would motivate such a level of distaste for the human race? Kidding aside, X-Wing community is awesome, love you all
  12. Right, I've been asking TOs for the past few months and that is how all of them so far have said it works. I certainly am happy to let my opponent pick which dice to use because it doesn't really matter. The TOs have said if both players can't agree for some reason they are generally happy to provide house dice as well.
  13. Do you really find this semantic distinction you're trying to make a stimulating conversation here? People are politely pointing out that it's a really poor argument about the intentions of the tournament regulations when weighed against its presence in the regulations in the first place, but if you want that spelled out there you go Respectfully you've said your bit on this now and anyone who was going to be convinced has been. Can we all perhaps take the "tournament RAW" discussion to another thread at this point to leave this one open for actual discussions of the article and impacts here? I'm fine with continuing to discuss whether dice sharing itself makes sense as that is one of the recommendations in the article, but I don't think arguing semantics of the current tournament rules is appropriate.
  14. Yep, almost anything is possible with machine learning, it's just a question of how much time, computation power and most importantly training data you have I tried to get the lighting fairly consistent but it varied a bunch over the day (was not a completely dark room) and it didn't turn out to be a big deal. Indeed I intentionally varying the colors/lighting a bit procedurally during training to reduce over-fitting on those things. I'll likely be making the repository with the code, training data and results open source in the next few days, so feel free to have at it and post back here
  15. Thanks! Note that there are a few more linked in the article itself, as well as some articles that discuss dice manufacturing processes that are an interesting skim. There are a few other folks who have made automated dice rollers over the years. The Ars article references this test which is probably the most similar to what I did, and definitely worth a read regardless: http://www.markfickett.com/stuff/artPage.php?id=389
  • Create New...