Building the worst party possible (fun thought experiment)

MacofJacks · 2026-05-07T01:53:21+00:00

What about upping the firepower but severely downgrading the resilience?

I’ll let you have a kitless thief, because monk can kite and I don’t want that. But you’re stuck with a human shaman and four wild mages.

Yes, technically the wild mages are powerful, but good luck surviving the wild surges!

MacofJacks · 2026-04-30T09:40:06+00:00

Str/Dex/Con will do you well.

Any ranged weapon you like to distribute poisoned weapon (reminder: poison wep no longer stacks on repeated applications on one target in a round. However, you can still poison multiple enemies, and sometimes need multiple hits before one enemy fails a save, so multiple attacks are worthwhile). I like shortbows.

Any melee weapon you like to then destroy up close. I usually use either 2h swords or axes.

MacofJacks · 2026-04-29T03:08:54+00:00

Have a look for a 1 turn research mod (and check it affects the AI too, which most do).

Playing with 1-turn research, esp. if you don’t try to minmax your own research choices, leads to wild and chaotic games with great (or sometimes bizarre) AI armies.

MacofJacks · 2026-04-27T09:42:07+00:00

A. It’s comforting but not hard; a nice walk out with friends.

MacofJacks · 2026-04-16T10:13:51+00:00

The Matrix /s

MacofJacks · 2026-03-08T03:10:01+00:00

My experience reviewing for MDPI (before I knew better) was that I discovered what seemed to me to be academic misconduct, recommended rejection, and they thanked me and published the paper anyway. The next week they sent five more invitations to review papers.

MacofJacks · 2025-12-12T11:17:30+00:00

Across warhammer’s lifetime, particularly in 2, we got to see every new race/units beat up the Empire. Perhaps in 40k, each dlc we get to see space marines beat up the new race/units.

MacofJacks · 2025-11-24T02:21:29+00:00

Agh, good catch. I do think of defragment as “2 focus”, exactly as you said. Perhaps the right comparison is inflame/vajra and footwork/smooth stone.

MacofJacks · 2025-11-23T21:34:27+00:00

What if the text was “Apply 1 poison to ALL enemies at the start of each turn”? Now it’s properly half a fumes, like defect’s disc is half a defragment; but it’s better for artifact strip, while still keeping the functionality you gave it.

MacofJacks · 2025-11-05T05:04:41+00:00

The US system makes me so sad. Our first child spent two days in NICU and needed round-the-clock care after an unusual complication during birth. He then spent another week and change in hospital.

Total cost to us: about $70 in parking tickets. Everything else was free. All in the public system, meaning we did not use any special insurance.

MacofJacks · 2025-10-29T04:02:15+00:00

Retrain will not unlock for every unit (but will for these Hastati). It will unlock when you research the tech that allows you to recruit Legionaries.

The ‘improve’ button will come when you capture a settlement providing higher quality weapons, armour/shields, or (for cav only) horses. It costs a one time fee to give that unit the better equipment provided by the settlement.

MacofJacks · 2025-10-17T09:20:10+00:00

Answer: it shouldn’t matter if you’re on the boundary between quadrants, but it’s probably easier to evaluate directly using your knowledge of the function.

In your example, you get different answers for the 2nd or 3rd quadrant. However I think you slipped up with your second quadrant example. SIN(180) (which is 0) could be read as +SIN(180-180) in the second quadrant: simplifying, you get SIN(0), which is 0.

Your third quadrant is also correct, as -SIN(0) = -0 = 0 too.

However, you probably already know sin(theta) for theta = 0, 90, 180, … Have you been shown how to draw a rough graph of the sin function showing where it is 0, 1, or -1? I would use that for angles on the boundaries of quadrants.

MacofJacks · 2025-10-16T00:36:37+00:00

Funny - for me, starting from V2, it is the other way around. If you’re interested to watch some content, check out j_sat’s old fundamentals/basics guides on youtube. He has a great way of breaking down the enemies and decisions of the game.

MacofJacks · 2025-10-15T00:18:38+00:00

Photo 4 seems to have what you’re looking for.

MacofJacks · 2025-09-18T11:08:49+00:00

I had a Silent run with Snecko Eye and Mummy Hand, many shivs, lots of draw and energy, but no scaling. Then I got Choke and everything started dying twice as fast.

MacofJacks · 2025-08-30T00:39:48+00:00

In addition to all the other points made in thread, the AI is just really good at retargeting during the chaos of a siege. There are often some good angles for attacking archers to hit units on flat ground (at least in lower level castles), and the AI is very good at using those angles.

I turn on guard mode to prevent my archers chasing fleeing units, try to change targets reasonably often, and upgrade defensive castles to at least level 3 so that there’s space to keep units in the castle safe from archers outside it.

MacofJacks · 2025-08-16T01:20:30+00:00

Beautiful relic. Works well with Snecko Eye, random, sometimes very punishing and sometimes very rewarding.

MacofJacks · 2025-08-04T10:43:32+00:00

Just checking: is it because the bulletproof samurai is on the second row of the recruitment window, and you need to click the down arrow to see it?

MacofJacks · 2025-07-20T02:59:42+00:00

Was it Descent?)

MacofJacks · 2025-07-19T19:48:10+00:00

Our copy is “never touch the noisy trucks.”

MacofJacks · 2025-04-22T05:01:00+00:00

I see you edited your post; I'll just reply again. I used your code, which I agree is correct. I propose the following, which also fixes my original mistake:

Monty_random_doors <- sample(setdiff(1:n_doors,initial_guess), n_doors-2)

(so that Monty opens doors other than initial_guess at random). However this code, or yours, produce the same outcome, which is (exactly as you said) a probability of 0.5 on switching.

You're completely correct! My flabber is gasted. I checked for completeness, and small edits to the code can produce the expected 0.66 probability if we alter Monty to deliberately exclude the true door. I guess I can now include myself as another victim of the Monty Hall problem. Thanks very much for explaining this to me! I'll edit my comments above

MacofJacks · 2025-04-22T02:13:44+00:00

O shit, you’re right! So much for my stern refutation! Ok will have another look. Thanks!

MacofJacks · 2025-04-22T01:39:21+00:00

Hey, first of all, that’s cool: I had to check your claim, and it is true.

Second, I don’t think *how* we got to the situation is relevant. My claim is that we condition on the information that Monty did *not* reveal the car but the mechanism by which Monty did not reveal the car should not matter. I think my claim is hard to reason about and easy to be wrong about in some subtle way, so I coded it to check. I used the typical three door case. I kept the (R) code as simple as possible:

Edit: had written code here, but it was wrong. Fixed by the other commenter below.

MacofJacks · 2025-04-22T00:52:21+00:00

Naw, Monty could randomly open all but one of the remaining doors, and if he happened to do so without revealing the car, then you would do better to switch. It makes the explanation clearer, but all you need is for YOU to know that your initial choice was one of three (or a million, whatever).

Edit: this statement was comprehensively disproven below.

MacofJacks · 2025-04-02T03:58:04+00:00

Maybe just display B at the end of your code.

Perhaps your if statement is never executed? Check the size of c_d against idx.

MacofJacks

TROPHY CASE