32eaee1eb047c7b77eef654c19d6a234c1f5a2c5
16
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 slaguru666andClaude Opus 5
|
1a80d3637c |
R-282: guard the bestiary against the powers, including the next one
check-bestiary proves the page matches its generator, and the generator had never heard of powers.mjs -- so the redcap sat in "the ones that take the most stripping" under eighteen green guards while its own entry said it never spends a defence. Two files agreeing with each other while both disagree with the engine is a quorum, not a check. check-powers now asserts per effect kind what the page must say: defenceStacking requires the creature off the stripping list, named as exempt, and the "across N creatures that spend defences" count reconciled against powers.mjs; attackFactor requires the rating the simulator actually uses printed as a number, which the courier's entry now carries. The clause that matters is the failure on an unknown effect kind -- a wired effect with no DOCUMENT_RULE fails the build, so the next one cannot arrive without somebody deciding what the document owes it. Without that this would guard the mistake already made and nothing else. Proved three ways in a worktree, exit codes read directly. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
slaguru666andClaude Opus 5
|
81ff44e70e |
The bestiary was still describing the fight R-275 changed
Two things in the generated document had gone stale the moment powers reached the simulator, and eighteen guards were green over both because nothing connects powers.mjs to bestiary.mjs. The dodge-ladder section listed Redcap among "the ones that take the most stripping" and counted it in "across 47 creatures", when NOT TIRED means it never spends a defence at all -- the exact opposite of what its own entry says three pages down. It is off the ladder now, the count reads 46 that spend defences, and the page names it: stripping is not a plan against it, killing it is. And the paragraph listing what the harness does and does not model never mentioned that it fights 39 of the 41 creatures with a power without it. It now says so, and counts from powers.mjs rather than stating it, including the 14 that are fight rules it cannot express -- so every figure for one of those is the creature with its best trick taken away. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
slaguru666andClaude Opus 5
|
303472f0ab |
The bestiary said "in doubt" and the rule no longer means that
R-280 widened admission from a [15,85] band to "the spread rate stands clear of both ends by more than its own noise", which admits fights that are nearly settled -- the_choir at 99.3%, the_stanchion at 6% -- as long as their noise is smaller still. The page went on saying "whose outcome was ever in doubt", which was a fair description of the band and is a loose one of the rule. It now says "whose odds leave room for a difference to show", and the provenance line prints the admission rule itself, read from the artifact rather than paraphrased, so the page cannot drift from the guard again. The rule is phrased as a clause in check-focus for that reason. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
slaguru666andClaude Opus 5
|
3d83fbde93 |
R-280: the band replaced by the test it was standing in for
MEASURABLE = [15,85] proxied for "can this fight move at all". The direct form, in the units the guard already uses: the spread rate must stand clear of both ends by more than its own noise. Deliberately blind to the gain -- admitting the sizes where focus fire clears its noise would make the guard's claim true by construction. Size is still picked on nearest-an-even-fight. 31 measurable became 38. the_arrears returns at 6.3, and switchboard arrives at 8.1 -- the second largest gain in the artifact, thrown away for being one point past a round number. Four of the eight carry effects larger than most rows the band already admitted. Two of them do not clear their own noise: the_choir has 0.7 points of headroom and used 0.2, the_stanchion has six and used 0.2. Above-noise falls 31/31 to 36/38 and the bestiary prints 36. That is two measurements reporting no detectable effect, which the band suppressed by refusing to take them. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
slaguru666andClaude Opus 5
|
a7eca91a9c |
R-278: raising SCAN_RUNS found that SCAN_RUNS had never been read
Asked to raise the scan until the redcap's pack size stopped flipping. Measured the threshold -- unstable at 3000 and 4000, stable across twenty seeds at 6000 -- raised it, and the re-record took fifteen seconds, which was impossible. winRate takes three parameters and pickSize passed SCAN_RUNS as a fourth. JavaScript discards it, so every scan has always run at RUNS and SCAN_RUNS has never been read by anything. The fix I was asked to make was inert in the same way as the thing it was fixing. winRate takes runs now. The redcap is still n=3 with gain 6.3, arrived at stably rather than luckily; the_arrears drops out of the measurable band at an honest scan, 31 packs to 30; the_committee moves 2 to 6 and stays pinned. Claim check still passes, bestiary regenerated. The only signal was a number being too small. A fifteen-second re-record is good news, and good news is what nobody investigates. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
slaguru666andClaude Opus 5
|
32ca982369 |
R-275: the harness had never read a creature's power
41 statblocks carry a POWER in their tactics and simulate.mjs read none of them, so a redcap that ignores the cumulative defence penalty has been measured as a creature that tires -- in check-lethality, in check-focus, and in every figure published about it. The defect was not that the powers were unimplemented, it was that nothing said they were not. powers.mjs classifies all 41: 2 wired, 14 notSimulable with a stated reason, 25 not fight rules. check-powers refuses an unclassified POWER and refuses a notSimulable without a reason -- and it does not test that the harness imports a power, it fights the creature with and without and requires the two to disagree. Moved: the courier 9.4% to 1.0% wiped (it attacks at half while carrying), the redcap 0.7% to 0.9% (small, because these fights rarely spend a second defence). ARGENT AND GULES was wired and then un-wired: it tripled the supporter's wipe rate to 75.2% because the harness has no ground and applied the borough-ground condition unconditionally. Same reason THE PULL is not wired. I had wired one and refused the other on identical facts. Lethality and focus re-recorded, bestiary regenerated. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
slaguru666andClaude Opus 5
|
8627fa3536 |
One generator, so a citation names one fight (R-265)
tools/playthrough.mjs exists to show a reader why a measured number is what it is. I cited it to another session — read seed 2, see the wipe the 45% row is made of — and the reproduction failed in front of them. They reported different outcomes at both seeds and guessed the cause correctly from outside: the two tools were not drawing from the same stream. They were not. simulate.mjs used a private mulberry32 makeRng; playthrough.mjs had its own LCG written to look like it. Both deterministic, both reproducible alone, and "seed 2" named a different fight in each — which breaks the only thing the tool is for. Its own comment claimed a seed here names the same fight there. check-focus carried a third copy of that LCG, so the two guards described the same game with different dice. makeRng is exported and both files use it. A playthrough seed is now exactly the first fight of simulate.mjs --seed <n>: --runs 1 --seed 2 and the playthrough give 9 rounds, 4 of 4 down, 1 dead, both. The other half was my citation rather than the code: the command I sent omitted --mode, so it plays both targeting arms and prints two fights. They read the last line, I quoted the first. The summary line now names the arm. check-focus re-recorded under the shared stream; figures move a point or two. What it buys is that the bimodality analysis now reproduces the published means exactly — 2.31, 3.03, 0.40, 0.42 against the four rows CLEAN GROUND publishes. Under the old LCG it agreed to within a decimal, which looked like corroboration and was two experiments landing near each other. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
slaguru666andClaude Opus 5
|
ad5fd57568 |
The harness was fighting a different animal (R-264)
Reading a narrated supporter fight showed it being hit on armR and head. It has wings; it
has never had arms. Three defects, all in the pipeline every published number comes from.
1. It located hits by species, not body plan — simulate.mjs read defender.species where
the game writes spec.bodyPlan ?? spec.species ?? "baseline" into speciesProfile
(build-packs.mjs:294). The barghest, kelpie and church grim were fought on two legs
with arms, and the supporter with no wings, so the fight its tactics call the one the
agents can win could not occur in a measured fight.
2. Armour was one scalar for the whole creature, and the harness's locations had no
armour field. Bare wings, the grounded halving and the vital exemption — R-254 and
R-255 — were invisible to every number. Worn armour was summed the same way, which put
a stab vest on a cleaner's head.
3. Nothing was ever grounded: a wing could be ruined and the creature kept flying.
Fixed in the game's order — locate, then apply what that location carries, every term
imported from rules.mjs. A ruined wing calls groundedPlanFor and the wounds carry across
by severity through remapLocationDamage, the function _preUpdate uses.
A bug of mine no guard would have caught: remapLocationDamage returns { damage, moved,
rescaled } and my first draft passed the whole object where a damage map was expected, so
every wound a creature carried was forgiven the moment it came down. check-lethality would
have passed it — fewer wounds means a longer fight, which reads as a number moving, and
this commit moves numbers. Found by probing a landing by hand.
20 of 47 creatures moved, 18 deadlier and 2 less. The supporter goes 69.3% -> 25.1% wiped,
3.38 -> 2.16 down, second deadliest to fourth: it was being measured as a 30-hit-point
creature in uniform armour 9 that could not be grounded. The small rises elsewhere are the
party's armour no longer covering locations it never protected.
check-focus then caught the page overclaiming, which is what it is for: focus fire still
helps in all 30 but only 28 clear their own noise where 31 of 31 did. The guard was
asserting more than the page needs — the bestiary prints that count from the artifact and
cannot overstate it — so it now checks only what the page asserts outright, and the page
rewrote itself to "in 28 of them".
Both baselines re-recorded. Minor version, not a patch: the published numbers changed.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||
|
slaguru666andClaude Opus 5
|
1d915c55cf |
check-focus: the focus-fire claim is an artifact, not a sentence (R-261)
R-258 put a tactic on a GM-facing page from an unguarded harness, R-259 found it worth
nothing, R-260 found the replacement right for the wrong reason. Three corrections, each
landing as prose with nothing checking it — the arrangement that let
|
||
|
slaguru666andClaude Opus 5
|
48216bae10 |
Focus fire across all 47, and the same confound one turn later (R-260)
Measured in simulate.mjs. For each creature, the pack size whose spread-fire win rate lands nearest 50% — a fight at 0% or 100% cannot show an effect, which is why R-259's first sample was three-quarters useless — then focus versus spread, 2000 fights across three seeds. 31 of 47 creatures had a pack size that could show anything. Focus fire helped 31 of 31, by more than that row's own noise 31 of 31 times, mean +12.8 points. Best is 6x The margin, 40.4% -> 61.1%. The other 16 are unmeasurable rather than unaffected: eleven are trivial six at a time, five are hopeless in pairs. R-259's decomposition was confounded, and I wrote it while correcting a confound. It credited the defence ladder with 4-5 points by comparing dodge <=30% against dodge >=55% — but the low-dodge samples were PAIRS and the high-dodge ones TRIOS. Held at a fixed pack size, dodge is worth 1-2 points. Pack size is the driver: 8.0 points for a pair, 14-15 for three or more, then flat. What focus fire buys is that a dead creature stops attacking and a half-dead one does not attack any less. Two failures, one cause: comparing groups that differ in more than the thing being measured. The control is cheap and I did not run it until the third time. The bestiary advised concentrating fire and gave the ladder as the reason — right advice, wrong reason. It now gives the reason that survives measurement. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
slaguru666andClaude Opus 5
|
995f3fa94e |
The firing order was worth nothing, measured properly (R-259)
R-258 put a tactic in the bestiary on the strength of a table-side harness — cheapest weapon first, best weapon last, 10.7 points of win rate across 24 orderings. Measured in simulate.mjs, the pipeline every published number comes from, it is worth +0.27 points, with per-seed differences of -1.5 to +1.8 against 2.6 points of noise on a single arm. Zero. The toy lied for two reasons, both mine. Its party had one uniquely valuable weapon (an anti-materiel rifle the borough does not own, so unhalved, worth double anything else) so there was something to sequence around; the frozen party is 4.09, 3.98, 1.43, 1.43 — two near-identical pairs. And the toy fixed the order every round, while the game re-rolls Reaction every round and has no rule for holding an action, which I checked before measuring. The order is not a decision the rules offer, and I had written table advice for it. The page is corrected: the ladder stays, because it is derived and true, and it now says you cannot choose who goes first. What is worth doing, measured the same way: committing a round's attacks to one target, in fights that can actually move (a fight at 0.2% or 100% cannot show an effect and three of my first four samples were pinned there). Against dodge <= 30% focus fire gains 7.6 points, which is just killing attackers sooner; against dodge >= 55% it gains 12.2, so about 4-5 points is the defence ladder and the rest is arithmetic unrelated to dodging. Separating them needed contested fights at both ends of the dodge range — without that control I would have credited all 13.8 points against three redcaps to the ladder, which is R-255's mistake again. runFight gained two hooks, off by default and unused by the baseline: partySequence rearranges the party within the slots initiative already gave them, leaving enemies where they fell so the experiment isolates agent order from who acts before the creature; and partyTargets "focus" concentrates fire. Both roll the same dice, and check-lethality confirms all 47 creatures still fight exactly as recorded. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
slaguru666andClaude Opus 5
|
f932a79121 |
The firing order, in the bestiary, generated (R-258)
DEFENCE_STEP is -30, so a creature's Dodge is not a percentage it has for a round — it is one it has once or twice. The median dodge in the book is 45% and goes 45 -> 15 -> 1 inside a single round. No player-facing document said so, which hid a real decision: what order the party shoots in. The bestiary now has a section on it. Only a landing hit spends a defence, so a miss strips nothing; each landing hit makes the next attack of that round easier; therefore the cheapest reliable weapon fires first and the one you most need to land fires last — against the supporter, the weapon the borough does not own. Everything it states is generated from DEFENCE_STEP, resolveBands and the statblocks: the step, the ladder, the median, the spread (13 of 47 creatures stripped by one landing hit, 25 by two, 9 by three) and the list of the hardest to strip. Negative-tested by setting the step to -15 and -20; the page rewrites itself both times. No win rates are published: the ordering measurements come from a table-side harness that ignores wound penalties, bleeding and dying, so the page states the mechanism and quotes no percentages. My first draft used the dodgiest creature in the book as the worked example — 80%, three landing hits to strip — directly beneath a claim that the first attack of the round eats the dodge. True of a modest dodge, false of a good one, and both were on the same page. tools/bestiary.mjs --check has existed since the document did, with the comment "(for the guards)", and no guard ever ran it: a check written and wired to nothing, the same shape as every rule found computed and never read. That was tolerable while the page restated statblocks and is not now that it derives from rules — change DEFENCE_STEP and the document lies to a GM. check-bestiary.mjs is the tenth guard, negative-tested both ways it can fail: a rule change that staler the page, and a hand-edit of the page. update-readme flagged it as "run by the build, not advertised" before I listed it, and the README's count word went from nine to ten by itself. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
slaguru666andClaude Opus 5
|
c0d33ee81d |
Hide 9, grounded 4, vital exempt — the borough is worth 56 points again
R-254 shipped the belly rule and called +6.4 points "modest on purpose". That read the
wrong statistic. +6.4 measured whether grounding helps; the question was whether the
borough still matters, and the gap between fighting the supporter on borough ground and
off it had fallen from 60.6 points to 44.9. Half damage from every departmental weapon is
meant to be the fight's central problem, and I had quietly taken sixteen points off it
while reporting a small number about something else. Same error as R-251.
Three changes that only work together:
- hide 7 -> 9, restoring the weight on the axis that should hurt
- grounded still halves it, 9 -> 4, which an ordinary round beats
- exposedHideFor now takes the location's kind and leaves `vital` unhalved: a beast on
its belly is not presenting its chest to the floor
Measured: 28.4% on borough ground flying, 68.4% grounded, 84.6% off it — a 56.2 point gap
against 44.9 before. Predicted 28.4 / 84.3 / 55.9 before building.
The composition of the three hide functions lives in prepareDerivedData where no test
could reach it, and check-anatomy's guard 6 is deliberately one-sided so it would not
have caught the vital losing its exemption. check-behaviour now composes the same
expression from the real supporter spec and the real tables. Negative-tested four ways:
removing the exemption, un-baring the wings, removing the halving, and inflating the hide
past what a round can beat each fail it with the right message.
Cost: the supporter goes from fifth to second deadliest creature in the book (2.84 -> 3.38
down, 46.8% -> 69.3% wiped). check-lethality refused the build until that row was
deliberately re-recorded.
BESTIARY.md printed the new hide and said nothing about it halving, because the body-plan
blurb predates the rule. The README said "eight guards" in three sentences above a
generated block listing nine. Both are the signature defect in prose: a number written
down that nothing reads. Both now generate.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||
|
slaguru666andClaude Opus 5
|
97fe2704e8 |
Measure creatures over 2000 runs, not 200 (R-253)
R-252 established that a recorded figure carried several points of slack
at 200 runs and that only more runs narrows it. This is that.
Measured by taking every creature under four different base seeds and
looking at how far the four answers sat apart, which is the noise a GM
reading the bestiary is unknowingly trusting:
mean spread worst creature
200 runs 1.28 points 11.5 points
2000 runs 0.36 points 2.7 points
The worst case is what mattered. One creature's published wipe rate
could be eleven points from the same creature rolled with different
dice, on a figure printed in docs/BESTIARY.md for somebody to plan an
evening around. Under three now.
It corrected 19 of 47 published figures, mean 0.35 points: the arrears
6% -> 8.9%, the supporter 44% -> 46.8%, the nuckelavee 13.5% -> 16%.
Each was a sampling artefact printed as a property.
The cost is the part worth recording, because it is why this was never
done. I guessed "maybe a minute of build time" when I suggested it,
which was wrong by a factor of thirty and would have been a fair reason
to say no:
check-lethality alone 0.29s -> 1.88s
whole nine-guard suite 2.55s
BESTIARY.md regenerates from the baseline, so its run count follows
automatically; its header now also says the seeds are derived per
creature, since "at seed 11" stopped being the whole truth in R-252.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||
|
slaguru666andClaude Opus 5
|
ddc4f99ff4 |
Hit locations reach ordinary combat, and creatures get a body
THE DEFECT. locationFor had ONE caller in the engine, hitLocationRoll, and hitLocationRoll was called from fall, burn, detonate and burstAttack. Falling, fire, explosions and automatic fire. Nothing else. rollWeaponDamage rolled dice, printed a number and returned it, so the chat Damage button, the character sheet's damage button and the item sheet's all stopped there. A grenade knew which arm it took off. A sword did not. Every individual piece was already correct - the tables, per-location armour and coverage, disable and destroy thresholds, Major Wound, dying, death, the figure on the sheet. They simply were not joined up, which is why this reads as a wiring change rather than a new subsystem. - rollWeaponDamage now carries through to hitLocationRoll: it rolls the location, applies that location's armour, applies the wound, and handles the rest through the machinery that already owned it. Nothing here re-implements any of that - locationModeFor picks the melee or ranged column from the weapon's class. The two columns have always differed and nothing was choosing between them - with no target it does exactly what it did before and SAYS SO on a card, rather than failing quietly - burstAttack opts out with locate:false - it rolls its own location per round, and letting both fire would have applied every round of a burst twice BODY PLANS. Two new tables: quadruped (four legs, fore/hindquarters, neck, a head that is hard to reach) and winged (that, plus wings). Forequarters are the vital. DISABLE EITHER WING AND IT CANNOT FLY, which is the fight a party can win. Barghest, Kelpie and Church grim were all species "baseline" - a black dog, a horse and a grave-hound, each hit-located with two arms and a chest. Fixed. Added "The supporter", a winged heraldic beast, so the new table is exercised by real content instead of existing unused. Body plan is a NEW FIELD, not a species. A bear is not a playable people with characteristic dice and talents, so creature specs take bodyPlan and the playable species list is untouched. THE NPC SHEET had no hit locations at all - 102 lines against the character sheet's 627 - while every NPC in the game had them derived and wired to consequences. It now carries the body-plan selector, the figure, the per-location table, the condition and a GROUNDED flag. The sheet class already extended the character sheet, so it already HAD the context; the template never used it. FOUND IN PASSING, by the new guard: kind "body" - the abdomen, the trunk, the hindquarters - did nothing whatever. Its printed effect has always promised "-30% to all Physical actions and bleeding 1 hit point per round until First Aid" and the code delivered none of it, on every body plan including the humanoid default. It now bleeds 1, or 2 destroyed, exactly as bodyX says. NEW GUARD: check-anatomy. Every body plan must cover 1-20 exactly once in BOTH modes, every location must be drawn and every drawn shape must be a location, and every kind must be one locationEffectsFor acts on, has effect text for, and has a destruction outcome. Verified it fails on a d20 gap, a shapeless limb and an unhandled kind before wiring it in. Ninth guard. VERIFIED IN A RUNNING FOUNDRY, not just unit-tested: melee bar reads the Melee column and the rifle reads Ranged on the same creature; forequarters graded as a vital hit; a maxed wing set flightLost and the sheet said GROUNDED; the real chat Damage button rolled 1D20 15, found the right foreleg, applied 12 through armour, disabled the leg and took the dog from 16 to 4; and with nothing targeted nothing was touched. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
slaguru666andClaude Opus 5
|
322389bc8a |
A bestiary a GM can actually read, and the defect it found immediately
Forty-six creatures and no way to look at them. They live in content.mjs, which is source code, and in the compendium, which shows one actor at a time behind two clicks. A GM prepping a case can browse neither, so in practice the bestiary was whatever the GM happened to remember writing. docs/BESTIARY.md is generated, never hand-written, for the reason the rules journal is generated from rules.mjs: a reference that can disagree with the thing it references is worse than no reference. It opens with a one-page table sorted by how much of a party each creature puts on the floor - the part that gets printed - then an entry each with characteristics, attack, the POWER line pulled out of the tactics, and the measured figure read straight from the lethality baseline. Every number is derived, so the document cannot drift, and check-lethality already refuses the build if the measurements move. IT FOUND SOMETHING IN ITS FIRST RUN. The generic heavy natural attack is keyed `grasp` and was NAMED "Vesh grasp limb". Twenty-two creatures carry it and five are Vesh, so the at-a-glance table cheerfully printed "Vesh grasp limb" against a black dog, a kelpie, a church grim and an apple tree. Renamed to "Grasping limb"; the key is untouched, so every kit reference and every built pack still resolves. That defect was invisible for as long as nobody could see the bestiary in one place, which is the argument for the document. The caveats are given more room than the numbers, deliberately. The measured column is SOLO against ONE frozen party, and the document says so three times: encounter lethality moves with how many there are and, much harder, with who the players brought - the same fight runs 0% to 100% across party choice. It points at --spread rather than pretending a single figure is an answer. Also records the real remaining gap: 21 creatures fight with nothing but their own bodies and still carry human anatomy, so the barghest can be shot in the left arm. The machinery to fix that is built and measured; what is missing is anatomy tables for the shapes they actually are - a quadruped, an immobile object, a swarm. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |