UberEvil
Joined: Oct 20, 2003
|
 Posted:
Jun 09, 2004 - 22:02 |
 
|
Since you don't fail armour rolls on snake-eyes you actually break the armour automagically. The calculations are correct. It won't matter much though since no player I know of can get an armour as low as 1 (I think 3 is the minimum). And notice that it says "Stun or worse" (that means worse for the opponent). |
|
|
teflon
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jun 09, 2004 - 22:06 |
|
My point isn't about the armor in fact. It's more about the fact that stun is on 6+ in non stunty and 5+ in stunty with RSC. Doesn't add up to 100%. |
|
|
UberEvil
Joined: Oct 20, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jun 09, 2004 - 22:44 |
|
What do you mean by 5+ and 6+? Rolling a stun (in non-stunty, without RSC) is equal to P(Armour roll > AV)*P(2 < Injury roll <= 7). So it's totally dependant on armour. If we are not taking armour into consideration a Stun in non stunty with RSC is = P(2 < Injury roll <= 5) = 10/36. If we look at the table you're looking at it says "stun or worse" which P(Stun or KO or SI) = P(Breaking armour), which is 100% if the AV is low enough.
Sorry if I seem to come on strong. It's good that you question anything you think is strange. |
|
|
teflon
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jun 09, 2004 - 22:55 |
|
Arrf, I screwed up, lol.  It's allright finally.  |
|
|
Freefragger
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 05, 2004 - 03:13 |
|
It seem like you have made a slight mistake, as the percentage for "P(Stun or worse|Claw+PO)" is the same as for "P(Stun or worse|RSC+Claw+PO)". else nice with some stats for the geeks who love them...  |
|
|
Uncle_Smed
Joined: May 22, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 05, 2004 - 03:35 |
|
| teflon wrote: | | There must be a problem in your calc. as a 100% chance to break armor, then stun even an av1 player isn't 100% whatever the skills. -?- |
Not so dear Teflon.
He's merely taken into account the fact that not 100% of the results obtained post-armour breakage are actually "Stunned" results.
There's also the "KO'ed" and the all important "Injury" results to be deducted from the 100% of results through armour.
And for all the Claw devotees I say this. I always think in terms of player development ie: getting more SPPs, and this result shows that even at AV 9, RSC is equal in chance of causing a casualty to Claw players and has better chances at lower AV values.
I rue the day I listened to you all and have now given two Claws to my Chaos team before any RSC.
*Please note, this is my personal opinion, I'm entitled and so are you. Stunning is nice, KO'ing ok, but give me the wet squelch of a casualty over either of those any day* |
|
|
UberEvil
Joined: Oct 20, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 05, 2004 - 10:16 |
|
| Freefragger wrote: | | It seem like you have made a slight mistake, as the percentage for "P(Stun or worse|Claw+PO)" is the same as for "P(Stun or worse|RSC+Claw+PO)". else nice with some stats for the geeks who love them... |
Always nice when someone digs up an old thread  . As for that mistake, it's not a mistake. P(Stun or worse) = P(Breaking AV) => P(Stun or worse|Claw+PO) = P(Stun or worse|RSC+Claw+PO) = P(Stun or worse|MB+Claw+PO), which is the same as P(Stun or worse|Claw+PO) since rolls affecting the injury roll doesn't matter since we only care about getting at least a stun.
I hope that made it clearer, otherwise please let me know. |
|
|
Colin
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 05, 2004 - 10:38 |
|
|
UberEvil
Joined: Oct 20, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 05, 2004 - 10:48 |
|
I don't mind at all. I might add to it upon request and I also plan to shape it up if there is still interst in it. I had a project this summer where I planned on a "Universal Blood Bowl Calculator" which could calculate the probabilities for any series of events (including, skills, re-rolls and team re-rolls) using Markov chains. The project came to a halt though, but maybe that was just as good. Some people might consider it cheating to know the odds to well [] |
|
|
poodle-man
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 10, 2004 - 18:46 |
|
Its only cheating if my opponent knows the odss better than me |
_________________
The Tr th. |
|
|
|
War Drums?
Search
