In this video, I provide several arguments that highlight the deficiencies of Low Luck dice and detail out why it should not be used in serious games of Axis and Allies. Skip the math: 9:10
Loved the vid. I never understood the low luck system, both how it works and why you'd want to use it. Unpredictable dice is what makes games of axis and allies exciting. Really well explained and presented. Great video mate
A weirdly timely video. I’ve been playing on Triple A and as of recent some of my most important battles have had something like a 98% chance of victory with 1% to draw and 1% to lose. Let’s just say I was tempted to turn on low luck after the results came in. But luck is why we play axis and allies instead of watching a WW2 simulator. Thanks for the vid!
5 месяцев назад
Nice presentation! I have similar views on LL. The last point is particularly insightful, since Low Luck allows the player to surgically strafe or airblitz the opponent, controlling the casualties in a given fight just by bringing the right number hitpoints as the attacker. Or similar a defender can prevent attacks from occurring simply by walling pips or flying aircraft around. More broadly main issue for me is that LL makes the endgame rather less exciting. At least for A&A boards not specifically designed with some sort of other randomizer involved, (I don't know maybe coming from production or bonuses or whatever?) Otherwise the likely results using LL are pretty much down to income/production and rolling hot on those remainders. The outcome of the game gets more predictable the longer the game goes on. I think this leads to earlier concessions, with players bowing out as soon as they get pushed out of range, say on a capital trade. This is easier to predict this coming, like round in advance under LL conditions- certainly more than in a dice game, where a wild swing could still shake things up. The underdog will just always have a harder time recovering position in LL, esp. in scenarios not designed around using that system. Without the possibility of a dramatic finish the game on repeat becomes stale. Maybe it's fewer coin flips in total, but the flips that do still exist will also feel somehow harder when they land face down. Also it makes the Bidding process much more narrow, particularly bids for infantry and subs, which can all but secure certain outcomes with no remainders being rolled. It's easier to break game balance via the bid process since the opener will cascade into each subsequent round. AAguns are also problematic, but then that's always sorta the case I suppose hehe. Anyhow, I thought it was a pretty solid case and a spirited defense of the standard dice. Cool vids!
And here's me thinking I was clever for coming up with a diceless combat system. I thought of this year's ago because a regular opponent said I only win because of the dice ... we never play tested , but now I know it would be a failure... Great info
Very interesting and informative video. I have heard about Low Luck many years ago but I could never decide to give it a try. And I guess the reason for doing so - even though it was more of a gut feeling - is simple: If I want to play a low luck game, I play chess. No dice, pure brain. However, many older players (such as me) have a fond childhood memory of playing Risk, which was all about throwing dice and very little about strategy. Axis & Allies is right in the middle. We all had games where our strategy was thwarted by dice - and quite a few games where the dice saved us. I like dice in Axis & Allies because they somehow reflect the unpredictability of the outcome of battles. Just think of the battle of Midway - a result that was very unlikely to happen and yet it did. I do use the addition of attack values divided by 6 to evaluate the risk of an attack, but there is so much more than that in order to decide whether to attack or not. Btw: an interesting method to boost the combat value of more expensive units is to give them target selection when you score a hit with “1”. But that is a different story.
I don't know how I missed this comment. I really like your analogy to Midway. I use that often in 'over the board' games, "...still not as unlucky as the Japanese at Midway..."
Very interesting video. I personally never was that interested in low luck as it seems to make the game more like chess and having randomness makes the game interesting and unique. I do think low luck can be helpful for theoretical attacks and strategies but seeing a video dissing on low luck, i'm all for it! Well made video
This is a phenomenally well put together video. As a fellow stats nerd I loved every second of it and the presentation and conclusions were well articulated, clearly diagrammed and surprisingly brief given the subject matter. Really hope this gains some broader traction in the community (at the bare minimum, it could be a useful resource if anyone who knows about it ever winds up in a playtest group for Renegade).
Very much appreciate your comment here. I actually feel relieved. Your opinion was one that pushed me to keep things as tight as possible. Really, really glad to receive this comment from you. (For anyone who reads this, this commenter is someone who understands and can interpret stats far, far better than I)
Very interesting as always, thanks to your channel i ve been able to consolidate my gameplay a lot from a strategic point of view....im enjoying playing a&a like never before, its.like a new game f when i used to as a kid. I own classic but imma bout to buy anniversary edition but with your videos im already a bit prepared ahah
Another fine video, I was a low luck advocate briefly, but now I see how much sacrifice is required, 5 dice should always be able to get 5 hits, just a matter of time. I know my 12 infantry can get 0-12 hits, probably only 2 but sometimes maybe much more, or a little less, an effective range of +10 to -2, compared to just 2 hits and no more or less. I recall my engineering technician days working closely with Statical Process Control in a machine shop, 32 data points were the standard amount needed to create a full bell curve data chart, showing the ranges, standard distribution and more that I don't remember (early 1990's). My idea (foolish) is introducing the minor aircraft unit, $5, attack & defend on a 1, move 4. 2 minor aircraft can be combined into one $10 fighter, or used building a $15 bomber. The minor aircraft attacks with (crazy part) 16 dice, 32 dice for the $10 fighter, because 6 aircraft carriers carry 12 fighters times 32 dice for each aircraft is equal to the actual number of aircraft Japan attacked Hawaii with, 360+ in 2 waves of 180. Not sure how it might work out but lots of dice rolling for sure. Also... always an also..each attacking unit is represented by 2 matching dice, one gets rolled in combat and the other simply showing exactly what unit hit, gets promoted / demoted, in an attempt to allow dice roll results more impact on the units involved...ie...an elite unit maybe wins all ties, gets to target the enemies units. My assault infantry (Fortress America) cost $3.75 and replaces the artillery exactly, the minor infantry cost $1.25, attack 0 defending 1 move 1 and can receive support from the Assault infantry, regular infantry $2.5 and normal. It's not ironed out because of the how to overcome a huge pile of minor infantry equations are not settled.
Awesome video. I used to be a fan of Low Luck but I believe it was you who was the first to make me change my mind about that. What do you think about the No Luck system? Do you also advise against that because of similar reasons? I have never played with it though, but when I heard about it it looked interesting.
Rewatching your video, I do have a question regarding your tweaks to the house rules: How would this be implemented in TripleA? Does it just have to be manually calculated (say, use a non-low luck battle calculator to see how to gain equality) and implemented each turn of a battle? Thank you!
@@thegoodcaptain1217 Thank you! Another question though: How do we calculate the likelihood of how likely a unit is to hit? For example, how do we do the calculations you did that 8 infantry will have a 75% chance of hitting? I don't think "traditional" battle calculators (like the one on TripleA) do that. Or is it just pure math? Thank you!
Quite controversial in my eyes. Anyways, some thoughts while watching the video: The first and second part were shorter than I expected, but I definitely don't think they needed to be expanded upon (a pleasant surprise). While I was aware that there was certainly a qualitative difference between 6 infantry and 2 tanks, I've never seen it presented this way nor did I know how low luck changes that . Thanks for telling me. Looking at your graphs for 12 infantry vs 18 infantry, I did notice the percentage difference between the left and right were smaller with the 18 infantry compared to 12 infantry. Does that mean that with very high amounts of infantry, the difference is negated? I would appreciate it if you could show whether that is the case. Thank you! Something you didn't mention was the opposite of "Units that hit at less than "3" have a higher probability of shooting under their average..." rule. Does it follow, then, that units that hit above 3 have a higher probability of shooting over their average than under their average? And that low luck ____ their power even more than tanks? I appreciate the solutions. When I play with pure luck, I did do the whole "adding up pips and dividing by 6" thing a lot. I knew it had some problems, but I always attributed that to dicing with lower numbers of units (1 strategic bomber vs 1 destroyer is a far worse battle than 5 infantry and 5 tanks against 9 infantry, even though the pip difference is the same) and the fact that the number of units in a battle also matters. In hindsight some of that is definitely connected to your graphs, but I never thought of it like that (the whole "units that hit lower than 3 are more likely to undershoot than overshoot thing). Brilliant, strongly built, thorough, and powerfully narrated video! Keep it up!
I feel this is an extraordinarily intelligent comment. And I cannot tell you how glad I am that you were able to extrapolate so much from the video. I feel that it means this video really communicated everything very well - so thank you for that. I nodded my head through the whole thing. Yes, bombers and battleships are 'punished' by low luck for the inverse reasons that infantry are 'rewarded'. I had a slide in there for bombers until just before cutting the video but took it out as I felt it would be too overwhelming. And yes, it appears that the more infantry you heap into a larger pile, the narrower the gap becomes between the left and the right side without ever completely becoming equal.
This is really eerie. A close friend of the channel described it in the same terms. And I will likely use this in a future video because I agree with this 100%.
This is one of the areas I'm unfamiliar with. Though I know of the steam version, I haven't played it. Thank you for posting this information - very interesting.
Very interesting. I appreciate you breaking down the statistics of it. Really I guess at the end of the day the entire concept is flawed because any attenpt at reducing luck will eliminate important outliers. With each game containing so many battles it is likely that at least one will have an outcome that was very unlikely and these sorts of things can define the rest of the game. If you never practice and prepare for these then you will be caught with your pants down when it actually happens. Nothing beats putting lots of time into practice/play testing, any shortcut may help those with a limited schedule but things will be lost in translation.
What you articulate here is actually one of the arguments I left out - i.e. even a very, very minor dice swing can completely change the board state. But you would never know this using low luck. It sort of blends with the final argument. Glad you enjoyed the video!
Regular dice and Low Luck are simply different disciplines. I say Low Luck does not lie. Low Luck is simply a mathematical system; a system that has wildly different results to a system built around regular dice, but even so. What "lies" are some players that try to make Low Luck something it's not. The cautions near the beginning of the video, don't use Low Luck as a predictor for game design, house rules, etc., *if the game will be played with regular dice* (that last not said in video, but I don't think I'm going too far in interpretation) - right. But that's not a fault of Low Luck as a system, it's a fault of players and designers that don't understand the system they're using. As a discipline, Low Luck itself has certain good points. Yes, the sharply constrained possibilities and reduced range of probabilities is very different. I wrote up a paper somewhere about 1942 Second Edition - I forget whether OOL or LHTR, and I had certain stipulations whether to press on or retreat - but anyways, it was around USSR1's West Russia / Ukraine open. The point of the paper was, under regular dice, the odds of successful "retreat" action at Ukraine combined with necessary West Russia results, was extremely low, I think something like less than 3%. But the odds of the same action being "successful" under Low Luck jumped to over 40%. So this led to my argument that USSR1 purchase should be 4 infantry 3 artillery under regular dice, as opposed to 4 infantry 2 tanks. The thinking is around a USSR2 attack against a strongly-held Axis Karelia. If USSR1 does not successfully retreat 3 tanks from Ukraine to Caucasus, then the USSR2's attack on Karelia is weak. If USSR 1successfully retreats 3 tanks from Ukraine to Caucasus and holds West Russia, then USSR1 2 tank purchase puts 5 more attackers on Axis Karelia. Stating "Why not just build 2 tanks and maybe get lucky" misses the point that 2 tanks is very different to 5 tanks in that scenario. In plainer terms, under regular dice I'd say USSR1 4 inf 2 tank is a bet that your opponent is incompetent. Under Low Luck I'd say USSR1 4 inf 2 tank is a reasonable bet at a pressure play. Similar things happen through a game of Low Luck. The tactics are different, the timings are different, the probability distributions are different, the outcomes are much more sharply constrained, which means both sides must accurately predict longer chains of events. I'm sure some Low Luck player may want to leap on that and shout "so Low Luck requires more skill!" No. It's simply different. Low Luck games typically have far fewer requirements for contingency planning, for example.
100% agree. Well said. I recently had someone tell me that Low Luck feels like playing Texas Hold’em with all the cards felt face up. I’m not sure that’s a perfect analogy but it sparked the following question, “Is Texas Hold’em still the same game if all cards are delt face up? Would we give this game a different name given how different it would feel despite it being functionally the same?” And so I appreciate this rhetorical for Low Luck used in Axis and Allies.
Yeap. Not sure I can fix that now...I'll make an edit in the description box. I think (hope) folks know what's going on due to the lead up and tone though.
@@AChannelThatDoesNothing well crap, if both of you noticed then something must be done. I edited out the offending sentence. Try it now. (for future readers, the error highlighted here was deleted using the RU-vid video editor and is no longer an issue)
As for the actual contents of the video...honestly, it boggles my mind that low luck is even a thing. Who came up with this? When? How? Why? lol so many questions. Well, I actually found someone who likes Low Luck and here's what they have to say: "So why do I like Low Luck? Let me explain with an example: Let’s say I am Japan and have brought 10 tanks to attack India, which is guarded by 10 Infantry. With normal dice I have a chance of around 85%, with an average of 4 tanks left. That is a decent chance, but it does also imply that I will lose this battle every 6th time. Reflecting that, I think it is not fair. I have invested a lot in that situation, but the result of dices might still deny me my prize. Not only have I invested twice the amount of IPC than india, I have also build the tanks, moved them, and - most importently - I have played the game in a way that allows me to make this attack against an overwhelmed foe now. In being able to make this attack I have demonstrated a tactical skill that should now pay off. If the dice decided that I will lose all tanks in round one (which is possible) I will feel cheated. Another example: Let’s say you are Japan and you have managed to outbuild my american fleet in the pacific. You have involved the allies in a lot of small battles that lead to the american fleet becoming smaller and smaller and now you have made a huge fleetpurchase in SZ6 and have a fleet there that is outnumbering mine Hawaii by far. Now I, realizing that I will lose the game, throw all my units into a desperate last assult against SZ6 that has merly 10% of success chance, and -guess what- I win and sink your fleet. Doesn’t that feel cheesy? In my opinion this game is about strategy, about tactics and about using the rules and the map to your advantage. Dice can screw that all, even if you are the master tactician. And in the end, when being diced, I have also invested a lot of time into a game. I can stand losing because someone is better, but not because someone is luckier. I think dice should have less influence on results in this game. I think Low Luck makes the game a better game." I think it boils down to wanting to control everything. Well, life is not always like that. You can do everything "perfectly" and still lose in the end. How many times have we had a perfect date or a great interview and it still not worked out in the end? What you do is pick yourself up, and just try again next time. It's frustrating, but managing your losses is a key component of the game and of life. If there no dice in this game, it would not interest me at all. Might as well go play Chess or something.
I think Low Luck is definitely useful for playtesting, but you cannot use the traditional system (i.e. in a D12 system, 12 pips = 1 hit). We did some math and actually moved to a playtesting system where 18 pips = 1 hit and even that was only around 75% probable. But in a real competitive game? No way would I use it.
I disagree for the reasons stated in the video but admire your efforts to adjust for its bias. Pipping up is ...interesting and should help compensate for the Low Luck bias in units that hit at less than six but I would be concerned about units that hit at numbers over six in this case. I believe if you're designing a game, it should be run with the game engine its intending to be sold or used under. If opening moves are the concerned, I don't see an issue with forced round 1 outcomes (and many, many, playtests with those various outcomes).
Your method of comparing the likelihood of columns "right" of one hit to columns "left" of one hit in both systems is a very apt way of comparing the likelihood of getting a hit in both systems, but that is not telling the entire story. You can add a 20.1% chance of 6 infantry getting 2 hits to a 5.36% chance of them getting 3 hits to determine that they have a 25.76% chance of getting either two or three hits. But you're ignoring the fact that 3 hits is more damaging to your opponent than two. Each column's likelihood must be weighted on the damage inflicted. Put more simply, while it is true that two tanks are more likely to score one hit than 6 infantry, they will never score more than two hits. The potential for infantry to score 3, 4, 5 or even 6 hits, accounts for the small discrepancy you highlight. A broader point to make, is that while you make some strong arguments why this may not be the best method for proving out/play testing a strategy that will be played in pure luck, you've made no arguments against the number 1 reason most people play low luck; namely to avoid anyone being diced. For me personally, I am not enough of a purist to care if the rules I'm playing are a perfect mathematical reflection of the OOB rules. I care if I and play group are having fun, and in my experience nothing kills a fun game of A&A faster than when hours of tight back and worth ends with the dice handing victory to one side or the other. To be on the losing side of that is immensely frustrating. To be on the winning side provides nothing but a hollow victory.
In descending order: 1) ...and it's not the 'entire story' as you say. That's why I concluded that segment comparing the ENTIRE right side of the column to the left side. Otherwise, I might agree with you. 2) Nothing is being 'ignored' in this context. The percentages (and hits) are addressed in the video and then I move beyond it in the discussion... Maybe you're concerned that I didn't pay enough respect to the infantry's 'ability' to score 3+ hits. But I really did. If this is the case for you, I will repeat and highlight that the next most likely outcome from six infantry is ZERO hits which you seem not to be concerned about? This zero outcome is stronger than the entirety of the right side of the graph. This is not true with tanks (or battleships/bombers which get penalized in low luck). The infantry ability to score 3+ hits is not greater than their ability to score zero. Further, the ability to score 3+ hits does not compensate for their ability to miss entirely. This is the problem. It is most easily seen and manifested in the game mentioned in the video: D-Day (where one side is saddled with an army of units that attack at 1 and the phenomena and its game affect can most easily be seen). 3) Probability has to add up to 100%, yes. Otherwise, I'm not sure what discrepancy you're on about here - or what you're trying to say. Maybe this is a rehash of the second point you made? 4) I feel like when I say in the video, "Is this good? Is it good to fool yourself into thinking.... etc" - and support it with battle examples - that this is in fact an argument against that exact reason. I guess I could have - and will - put it more plainly here: Low Luck "dices" itself - the 'winner' wins harder / the 'loser' loses harder. I guess I could be missing something but I'd have to have a low luck advocate explain how the attacker is not being 'diced' by low luck in the first battle example? 5) Geez. This is the most baffling (and mildly depressing) comment in the post to me. The hypothetical you describe is a perfect example of everything that should be fun and exciting in not just a game of Axis and Allies - but frankly any game with dice between equally skilled opponents. If all sides are equally skilled and the game is balanced, it must necessarily come down to the dice (again, granting that all players are equally skilled) to determine a winner. I guess you can look at it through the lens you described but it just seems depressing. I actually would advocate for Low Luck if this were the case and if it made everyone happy but I would respectfully decline to play for the reasons listed in the video.
One argument I left out of the video was that it appears to make the predicted winner in a battle just win harder. So a game that has an imbalance will just become even more imbalanced. It doesn't have anything to do with one faction being favored over the however. I just plucked those two out of the channel at random.
Your math comparison of infantry vs tanks lowluck vs standard is off because you didn’t weight the odds with the number of hits. Rolling 5 hits over expected should be weighted more compared to 1 hit under expected. With those weightings, low luck and standard dice have the same expected number of hits.
Since I see you’re replying. I’ll expand my thoughts a bit more. I think you’ve entirely missed the point of low luck. The whole point is to remove variance, luck, and, risk from the game. To critique low luck by saying that it has less risk than regular dice is like critiquing vanilla ice cream because it doesn’t taste like chocolate. I don’t play low luck, but some people just prefer something closer to chess than out of the box Axis and Allies. It’s a different game, sure, what’s wrong with that?. If all of the players want to play that way, I don’t see anything wrong with it.
@@Rudmin the point of the video was to demonstrate why swapping out the game engine for a different one doesn’t translate well into an actual game of axis and Allies. I’d hope the pointlessness of making a video arguing about someone’s favorite ice cream flavor would be self evidently silly enough that it wouldn’t have to be addressed. To have to say “you can play the game any way you want” I feel is superfluous and condescending to my audience so I left that out. But if it needs to be said here, I agree that anyone can play any game any which way they want - even one with low luck.
@@Rudmin “what did i miss” It “should” be weighted? And “with those weightings”….? I don’t know ‘what you missed’. It’s more that this comment comes off as unlettered and is unclear to me.
Your arguments against LL seem to be: 1. It's a bad way to shorten the time needed to establish/test strategies for HL play. 2. Roll outcomes are the same in LL across different unit compositions. 3. It generates different win/loss odds than HL. These are obvious tautologies that I don't think anyone that enjoys playing on LL would argue. It's. a. variant. Since randomization is so key to what happens on future turns in A&A due to butterfly effect, and since the randomization is done very differently in LL, there's no expectation that strategies would be cross-compatible or that battle outcomes would be comparable. You wouldn't practice a scenario on one to get good at the other. Of course, they are different game modes. It'd be like practicing classical chess to get good at bullet: while adjacent, not a good use of time. On the other hand, LL is a ruleset that's "helpful and healthy" for people that like less randomization of outcomes. For those that like more luck, no problem, just don't play the variant. I'm not sure how it would be a more "silly method to determine casualties" than any other set of game rules one could imagine. In fact, you could say the opposite: in large battles, you roll a "silly" number of dice just to determine a single round of combat results in HL. I think this is symptomatic of a general misunderstanding between many what I would call "purists" and people that are ok with -- and even enjoy -- exploring variants. I also think there is an assumption at play here that some competitive players make, which is that everyone must be playing "my" game for the same reason I do: to get as good as they possibly can at the RAW version of the game. This is a very narrow view of game enjoyment and misses the fact that different people have fun in different ways. It's not an offense to a game for community-created variants to exist. They're born for a reason, and it comes from people that like the game design overall, but dislike very particular aspect(s). Instead of giving up on the game and surrendering their stake of interest, some create another way to enjoy it, and invest the time to share that idea with the world. It's really nobody else's business what someone does with a game after they've bought it, and in fact it's healthy for the community if variants exist. More fans means more demand and more future products, no matter what kinds of fans they are. And, a sizeable enough group that likes a variant shows the original designer that there is a constituency that may be worth paying attention to and developing specific products/expansions for. In basically every case, it's good for the health of a game to have a big tent mentality and not just attack or dismiss subsets of players that enjoy the same thing in a different way than you do. They're part of the game's overall success and have dollars just as green as yours. So, don't tell people what "should not be used in any game of Axis and Allies". Just don't use it in yours.
You start with a solid recap of the video but then say "These are obvious tautologies that I don't think anyone that enjoys playing on LL would argue" which is entirely untrue. Some of the leading and brightest minds in the community are confused on these exact points. I'm glad you're not confused, but a frightening number really are. Are you on axisandallies(dot)org? (serious question) Aside from that, the rest of this is an odd read to me. Of course anyone can play any game any which way they please. You're also free to have your favorite color be green, purple, brown etc. To state something so obvious explicitly in the video like "you're free to play the game any which way you please" felt to speak down to my audience which I will not do. I feel this is self evident. EDIT: "So, don't tell people what "should not be used in any game of Axis and Allies". Just don't use it in yours." I didn't. I don't appreciate this at all.
@@thegoodcaptain1217 the final quote was is in the very description of your video. And, it was very important. But, it seems the description has changed since I copy and pasted the end of it, which is fine. Games of LL could be "serious", but I understand what you're going for, so thank you. It would seem there are a lot of unspoken assumptions that don't setup the content of the video well. If the video is only meant to target specific people in the community that you've witnessed that use LL rules to think they're simulating HL situations, that wasn't made clear, IMO. Not all playing of A&A happens online, and many including myself play the game offline infrequently only using LL, and enjoy it that way. Sure, it has balance implications that need to be handled. Sure, combats go differently than they would in HL. That doesn''t mean it's a bad variant. I like strategy games that are more chesslike, and LL gives me a way to play A&A closer to that. Your video, as presented, acts as a deterrent against other people like me trying it out and even seeing if they like it (I see such comments under this very video), which I think is just unnecessary. What is the world gaining from it? Anyway, my compliant doesn't mean I dislike all your videos or anything. Your strategy videos all seem well thought out, well structured, and researched. I just think in this particular one you may have gone a bit too far with your commentary without a circumspect understanding of (or, at least, without circumspect regard for) all the ways LL is used. It's not a lie if you understand how probability works and are knowingly accepting the differences. If I could have summarized your video essay as "Play using LL if you want to, but here is a deep breakdown of all the strategic and probabilistic implications of doing so." then my comments here would not appear. It may have been your original intent, but neither in the words chosen nor in the the tone used are you taking that stance in the video as presented, and thus why I commented.
Ah, the description box. Okay, I may have misspoke by one word and have made the edit. Thanks for that. Otherwise I just have to disagree with the spirit of your follow up comment. I don't see any change in style or tone from the initial comment. I feel like you're reading into my video some intent that is not there and are still doing so after I'm telling you what my intent is and was. But I'll try again: The direct inspiration for the video was D-Day as stated in the video (which you never mention...). I added in the comment about the community because of how you casually asserted proponents of low luck think like you and wouldn't contest this. This specific assertion is an error. This is not true and so it felt germane to mention it to you specifically in this context. I would not have mentioned it otherwise. Again, the inspiration for this video comes mostly from my experience with D-Day and the shocking differences in outcome between low luck and pure luck when playing it. And again, your comment about LL proponents not arguing these points is not correct (which I did not mention in the video and only added here because of your assertion). EDIT: A fellow player once said something along the lines of, "I feel that Low Luck is like playing Texas Hold'em with everyone's cards face up. And the most interesting question at this point is to ask, 'Is it still Texas Hold'em if we play like that?'." This comment captures far better my intent with this video.
@thegoodcaptain1217 ok, so you feel the video is properly contextualized and not negative towards use of LL in general. Yet there are many points throughout the video you make clear your disdain for the variant in a general, non-restricted context. We'll just agree to disagree here, no problem.
@@cymerdown Now I'm pretty confused how you got here. The video is clearly negative to LL in general. I feel negative towards it for the reasons listed and I was inspired to make this video after playing many games of Axis and Allies D-Day. If I had more feedback like this, I would say I regret not throwing in the (what I feel is) redundant line of "of course if you want to play the game this way in your play group bc its fun, etc. - you can" but I'm not the king of axis and allies and I felt it was self evident and so I left that line of sentiment out of the video. My skype is ryan.voznick and my discord is thegoodcaptain#5625 I'm offering to voice chat since this conversation's level of detail may have gone beyond simple text. Otherwise, as you said agree to disagree - 100% okay with that as well.
