"You like chance cards!" Topic

You were asked – TMP link

How do you feel about the use of chance cards to determine random events in miniature wargaming?

58% said "I like chance cards"
15% said "I dislike chance cards"
13% said "none of these/no opinion"

Hate them, they have in general no analogue in the real world. In game terms, they have destroyed what was already a mediocre game.

There's no "chance" in the "real world?"

Do you really think you are in complete control during a game, much less in life?

No snark here, I'm just honestly amazed at your obviously sincere (and oft stated) belief.

TVAG

Remarkable how much hedging along the lines of "I like them IF…" or "I like them BUT…" somehow vanished.

There are ;ots of "statistics" in statistics. Even in our own gamedesigned to be more predicatable (not so over random) however even than you gat very repomte possibiliies happening that is the way of things. They are plausibe reall remote chances. S**T happens.

Chance cards, Pre-programed vauge and not neccessarily representative of the situation they were drawn are not representative. They are not even "chances" they are defined happening, as by the time you get to the end of the deck the event will have happened.

In some games it is expected the event will occour every game as you go through the pack every game! If that were in the real world mitigations would be in place.

Yes somtimes folk get lost, but typicaly in specific circumstances. The US missed their beach on Normandy and their lack of training on landing craft caused a whole line of craft to sink they were found in a line in recent years.

That was not random but a lack of experience and training and also planning. Other Americans understood the issue and ammended their landings sensibly. How would you make a generalised card to reflect this complex situation that would happen every game by the way, as you only have a very finite number of cards.

Ego Chance cards are not random and have no link to the curerent situation ego not realistic.

Like anything… it depends on how, why and when they are used,

Chance cards, Pre-programed vauge and not neccessarily representative of the situation they were drawn are not representative.

Great tautology! If you take something that is not representative, then yes, it will not be representative.

That does not mean you can't design a set of "chance cards" that are representative of a situation. Functionally, it is no different than designing rules, tables, etc. with stochastic properties.

as by the time you get to the end of the deck the event will have happened.

Which rules require you to go through the whole deck of chance cards each game? You certainly could do that, if you wanted to. but it's not necessary to (and none I have seen actually require it), so that is not an inherent fault with chance cards.

If that were in the real world mitigations would be in place.

Mitigations don't completely stop bad things. They mitigate them.

While you're looking up the word "mitigate' in the dictionary, also look up the word "ergo". Or "ego".

So cahnce cards are typicaly about 50 cards. So the chance at best is quite proable, about 2%. That means that that is slightly less tan half our losest possible monifier. So how many "chance" occorences appear regularly at 2%. In my buisness chnce evet are rated as mainor at about 10^-4 per hour for events that do not offer a major risk to life or for which mitigation is possible. I don't see too many commecial sets having 10 000 cards. Hence you are talking not about chance rare events but common events (2% (ish)). That seems a pointeless objecctive if ever there was one to me.

Now if you really want to have plausible rare events at 10^-4 or even lower occourences, I see no reason why you should not. However tailoring them to be plausible and entertaining (tea break type cards have ruined games for example), is you perogative, but not one I would fine entertaining and certainly not worth the additional work load, speed of play is critical as far as I am concerned.

@ Uscha, a couple of thoughts, first lucky you if you can run some sort of production line at that level of efficiency. I'd love to know an army that meets that sort of effectiveness; but even if you want this level of 'chance' introducing you don't need that many cards you just use dice to determine if the chance event happens [4 coloured decimal dice] and then if it happens draw a card. Having applied the card you then put it back in the pack and reshuffle so next time you might get the same one or not.

Hate any rule set that uses cards. Period.

Grattan54 +1

So cahnce cards are typicaly about 50 cards.

Provide your data for this assertion.

Try Monopoly as a start. Axe an Tommehalk was anothee (well somthing like that). It was so bad I tried to forgett the game.

On that basis you should be able to name a system with hundreds of cards available to the general public.

Well, apparently Monopoly is a wargame and there are only three wargames, given that you listed two as your demonstration of "most" wargames.

On that basis you should be able to name a system with hundreds of cards available to the general public.

So, that is the Argument from Ignorance logical fallacy. You're the one asserting that this true. I didn't say it wasn't true. I just don't believe that if you're going to do analysis with math, you should make up the numbers (the Strawman logical fallacy).

Unless your premise is true, there's no point in discussing Mark J Wilson's point that you are comparing a factory production line to combat, or that 50 cards is more than enough to represent the frequency you said needs 10K cards.

Again your approach is merely bluster. You utterly fail as usual to grasp the point. With a low(ish) (sub really 10 000 cards) you are not going to get unusual events. Two percent is not a rare event. You have failed a to make
any statement as to what you consider a reasonable probability for a rare event that is worth modelling. In addition you have missed the point altogether as to why YOU like or do not dislike chance cards, the topic of the thread. Oh and where is even a poor example of a game that uses Hundreds of chance cards? If you have none seems to me you have no logical argument other than I don't know. makes makes your

So, that is the Argument from Ignorance logical fallacy. You're the one asserting that this true. I didn't say it wasn't true. I just don't believe that if you're going to do analysis with math, you should make up the numbers (the Strawman logical fallacy).

is unsubstantiated and hence has no merit.

is unsubstantiated and hence has no merit.

It's fully substantiated. You even quoted the substantiation.

Again your approach is merely bluster. You utterly fail as usual to grasp the point. With a low(ish) (sub really 10 000 cards) you are not going to get unusual events

Your psychic powers are about as low as your powers of rhetoric.

I completely grasped that you made the fallacious statement that you can't get a 10^-4 probability event from 50 cards, and the further one that you need ~10K cards to do it. You repeating those statements doesn't make them true. It just makes you wrong again.

I didn't miss the topic. I simply asked you to provide data behind your assertion. Your response was the Argument from Ignorance fallacy.