August 05, 2024, 03:14:51 AM

Author Topic: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development  (Read 263490 times)

Offline lastspartacus

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1279
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #1020 on: January 06, 2011, 12:03:04 PM »
You half based on squadron?  I thought you couldnt lose that one lance.  This supposedly work on cap ship squadrons too?

Offline Plaxor

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1106
  • Tyrant of BFG:Revised
    • BFG files
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #1021 on: January 06, 2011, 12:10:58 PM »
People squadron capital ships?  :D


Yes, but nearly all capital ships have even numbers of weaponry.

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 4197
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #1022 on: January 06, 2011, 12:20:49 PM »
You half based on squadron?  I thought you couldnt lose that one lance.  This supposedly work on cap ship squadrons too?
Yep, BFI halving always on squadron basis.

3 Firestorms on BFI = 2 lances & 3 wb
4 Firestorms on BFI = 2 lances & 4 wb

Since very first FAQ (2001?).

Applies to capital ships squadroned as well.

Offline BaronIveagh

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 859
    • Dark Reign
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #1023 on: January 10, 2011, 01:41:42 AM »
Wrong: 50% of the aboats, on average will get through.  that's 50%.  Of those that get through 66% will hit.  That's 33%.  Of those, 50% will be stopped by the brace. So only 16% will hit.

Wrong. Learn to math dude. I'll give you a chance to correct your own mistake before shooting you down.

Quote
And, you will never roll 2 bc and 1 wb, as 4 and 3 are more or less identical against escorts on the gunnery table.  So it's either 2 and 2 or 1 and 1.  With the lance you can roll 2 and 1.

3 BC vs closing escort = 2 dice, placing a BM. 4WB vs closing escort with BM = 1 dice.

If you cannot beat escorts with that you are : a weak tactical player.
Seriously BaronI : I mean this.

I'm not going to comment on this statement.  

Even though it's true? With torps, THs, TH-As, TP attacks and BCs you can't win against escorts? You need lances too?

Sigoroth, not sure how you're claiming my math is incorrect.  Perhaps you'd like to explain?

And: Simultaneous fire equals no BM reducing that BC hit.  Sorry.

Oh, and on that end part: if you want to troll me, you need to try harder.  


People squadron capital ships?  :D


Yes, but nearly all capital ships have even numbers of weaponry.

I do, but usually it's for some reason like LBs and a higher LD for reloads.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2011, 01:44:00 AM by BaronIveagh »
non nobis domine non nobis sed nomine tua da na glorium

Offline Eldanesh

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 75
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #1024 on: January 10, 2011, 06:10:32 AM »
Quote
Sigoroth, not sure how you're claiming my math is incorrect.  Perhaps you'd like to explain?

You can't just add the chances of a single Aboat :) 
A chance is different from an “average result”

For simplicity I'll show it without BFI first, as BFI makes the math a bit more complicated.

4 Aboats vs. an escort (2turrets) and additional 2 massed turrets are:

1 in 16 cases all 4 make it
4 in 16 cases 1 is shot down
6 in 16 cases 2 are shot down
4 in 16 cases 3 are shot down
1 in 16 cases 4 are shot down.

Marines destroy any escort on 3+ according to the new FAQ

If 4 make it the chance that a least 1 rolls a 3+ is 80/81
If 3 make it the chance that at least 1 rolls a 3+ is 26/27
If 2 make it the chance that at least 1 rolls a 3+ 8/9
If 1 make it the chance that at least 1 rolls a 3+ 2/3

Now multiply the chance of an event with its Frequency and add all together:
(1 x 80/81 + 4 x 26/27 + 6 x 8/9  x 4 x 2/3) / 16  =  (1040/81) / 16 ~ 0.802

So unbraced there is an 80% chance to destroy the escort. 

If braced, the thing gets a bit more complicated as you have to look on ever possible combination.
In this case it is a bit easier to count the results that doesn't end with the destruction of the escort and subtract them from 1 :

 no ship makes it: 1/16 

1 make it but does not “hit”:  ¼  x 1/3  = 1/12
1 make it, hits but is saved  : ¼  x 2/3 x 1/2 = 1/12

2 make it, none hits: 3/8 x 1/9 = 1/24
2 make it, 1 hit, saved by BFI: 3/8 x 4/9 x 0,5 = 2/24
2 make it, both hit, both saved 3/8 x 4/9 x ¼  =  1/24

3 make it, none hits: ¼  x 1/27 =  1/108
3 make it, 1 hit, saved: ¼ x 2/9 x ½  = 3/108
3 make it 2 hits, all saved ¼ x 4/9 x ¼ =  3/108
3 make it 3 hits, all saved ¼ x 8/27 x 1/8 = 1/108

4 make it, none hits: 1/16 x 1/81 =  1/1296
4 make it, 1 hit, saved: 1/16 x 8/81 x ½ = 4/1296
4 make it 2 hits, all saved: 1/16 x 8/27 x ¼ =  6/1296 
4 make it 3 hits, all saved: 1/16 x 32/81 x 1/8 = 4/1296
4 make it 4 hits, all saved: 1/16 x 16/81 x 1/16 =  1/1296

Add all together: 625/1296 ~ 0.482
1 -  625/1296= 671/1296 ~ 0.518

So the chance is ~ 52%  to destroy the escort

Offline Sigoroth

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1386
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #1025 on: January 10, 2011, 11:47:00 AM »
^ This.

Offline BaronIveagh

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 859
    • Dark Reign
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #1026 on: January 10, 2011, 06:15:51 PM »
Ok, I think I see where we're going: you're using frequency probability and treating the die as a 'fair coin'.  (In that the object and toss are mathematically perfect)

I'm using propensity theory to come to a different conclusion, as the first state causes the next state in a series of iterations.
non nobis domine non nobis sed nomine tua da na glorium

Offline Eddie Orlock

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 33
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #1027 on: January 10, 2011, 08:58:47 PM »
Ok, I think I see where we're going: you're using frequency probability and treating the die as a 'fair coin'.  (In that the object and toss are mathematically perfect)

I'm using propensity theory to come to a different conclusion, as the first state causes the next state in a series of iterations.
So, shall we give you the benifit of the doubt for a bit and allow you to post some more complete math rather than gainsaying middel school math with what appear to be crude approximations.

The math you posted looks an awful lot like the kind that says: We need to kill one escort, so we need unsaved wound. Half of those get saved, so we need two wounding hits. Only two thirds of attack runs wound, so we'll need a spare one of those and half our boats get turreted down on the way in, so we'll just double it again. Now we guarantee killing the escort with six boats. P(kill) equals unity. Most of my peers around here would scoff at that argument and with good reasons. Not only is it mathematically unsound, it doesn't even stand up to our anecdotal experiences. It is still far too common though.

That is a bit of a strawman, and I only trust that it's not representative of your position.


I think we can further elaborate that the calculation methodologies are independant of the 'fairness' of the die and that if they're known to not be 'true' predictive allowances can be made to the assumed constants fairly easily.

Maybe you could summon up some links to some authoritative works on 'propensity theroy' for the edification of your peers around here, as my cursory studies suggest that while the philisophical constructs are different, the math is the same.

Offline skatingtortoise

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #1028 on: January 10, 2011, 11:50:36 PM »
not sure how all this mathfleet gothic relates to required changes to the marines?

in any case BI showed the same probabilities in a different way, and got halfway to the answer. the maths he gave were the probability of one a-boat against one turret, getting one hit. when you go to 4 a-boats its not a flat ratio, as every ship has a separate bite of the cherry, so you multiply all the probabilities.
in this case, p(kill) = 1-p(miss), because there is no alternate possibility. its either one of them hits, or they all miss. if you assume 1 turret per assault boat, each individual attack does have a 16% chance of a kill, or 83% chance of miss. but if you want the chance that they ALL miss (or 0 hits):

with bracing, probability of failure for one a-boat is 83%
0.83^4 = 48%

still not sure what we're trying to prove here. saying that a wing of 4 a-boats will kill a braced escort 48% of the time isnt that useful. what are we comparing to? lances? how many lances?

how about how many lances are worth 2 thunderhawks against escorts?
the probability of 2 t-hawks getting a kill vs a braced, 2 turret escort is about 56%.
1 lance is 0%
2 lances is 25%
3 lances is 50%

so in this scenario, a thunderhawk is roughly equivalent to 1.5 lances, when attacking escorts. it also shows that anything is proveable with the right choice of mathematical techniques.



Offline lordgoober

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 151
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #1029 on: January 11, 2011, 12:26:13 AM »
I haven't been following the thread and am looking at the documents for the first time as a prep for Adepticon as I am running the event.  For the Strike Cruiser upgrades,  these are available also to strike cruisers that are part of an Armageddon fleet list correct?

Offline BaronIveagh

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 859
    • Dark Reign
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #1030 on: January 11, 2011, 01:13:09 AM »
So, shall we give you the benifit of the doubt for a bit and allow you to post some more complete math rather than gainsaying middel school math with what appear to be crude approximations.

The math you posted looks an awful lot like the kind that says: We need to kill one escort, so we need unsaved wound. Half of those get saved, so we need two wounding hits. Only two thirds of attack runs wound, so we'll need a spare one of those and half our boats get turreted down on the way in, so we'll just double it again. Now we guarantee killing the escort with six boats. P(kill) equals unity. Most of my peers around here would scoff at that argument and with good reasons. Not only is it mathematically unsound, it doesn't even stand up to our anecdotal experiences. It is still far too common though.

That is a bit of a strawman, and I only trust that it's not representative of your position.

I think we can further elaborate that the calculation methodologies are independant of the 'fairness' of the die and that if they're known to not be 'true' predictive allowances can be made to the assumed constants fairly easily.

Maybe you could summon up some links to some authoritative works on 'propensity theroy' for the edification of your peers around here, as my cursory studies suggest that while the philisophical constructs are different, the math is the same.


You want links, we have links:

Hájek, Alan "Fifteen Arguments Against Hypothetical Frequentism".  Erkenntnis (March 2009) 211-235.

http://philrsss.anu.edu.au/people-defaults/alanh/papers/fifteen.pdf


However, I'll also admit that almost all probability methodologies have problems: the single case problem for frequency probability, Humphery's Paradox for propensity interpretation, and so on.

Due to the fact that frequency interpretation requires perfect repeatability to generate accurate results, and that no two die throws are the same due to sensitivity to initial conditions, it is impossible to determine exactly how biased a die is in a given throw.  (Indeed, I've seen many of our 'peers' spend hours trying to determine a die's bias [though they don't call it that] before purchasing one at a FLGS, only to have it roll poorly in another setting).

The reason I chose the methodology that I did was that, due to the aforementioned inability to determine the precise bias of the die, each toss should be treated as a single case, though there are only a handful of possible outcomes.  In each case, I took the most likely favorable outcome, and used it as the basis for the next state.  

In the case of four Aboats flying into four turrets, the most likely favorable outcome is two Aboats get through, and so on.  

 While the methodology may or may not be independent of the 'fairness' of the die, the accuracy of it's outcome is absolutely dependent on how biased the die actually is.  A die with a very strong bias toward rolling a six in the hands of the attacker can turn even a single ship into an unstoppable juggernaut.  A strong bias in the hands of the defender can make a ship invincible.  Since we cannot pre-sample the die to make an educated guess as to the nature of it's bias, broadly speaking, using frequency, we have to treat it as a single case.



@Lordgoober: I believe that is the case: though I ask, will adeptcon be using this if GW rejects the draft of FAQ2010 that's currently being presented?
non nobis domine non nobis sed nomine tua da na glorium

Offline lordgoober

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 151
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #1031 on: January 11, 2011, 03:10:40 AM »
That I'm not sure. It all depends on the timeframe that this happens.  Is there actually a possibility that GW would reject the faq?  Actually what am I thinking?  of course there is,  this is GW we're talking about.  That being said, even if rejected we're probably going to be using the 2010 faq this year because it's been announced that we are using it. 

Offline BaronIveagh

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 859
    • Dark Reign
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #1032 on: January 11, 2011, 03:26:58 AM »
That I'm not sure. It all depends on the timeframe that this happens.  Is there actually a possibility that GW would reject the faq?  Actually what am I thinking?  of course there is,  this is GW we're talking about.  That being said, even if rejected we're probably going to be using the 2010 faq this year because it's been announced that we are using it. 

It's always good to be prepared.  Even if plan B consists of a volley of torps and a 180.
non nobis domine non nobis sed nomine tua da na glorium

Offline Sigoroth

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1386
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #1033 on: January 11, 2011, 09:16:46 AM »
Ok, I think I see where we're going: you're using frequency probability and treating the die as a 'fair coin'.  (In that the object and toss are mathematically perfect)

I'm using propensity theory to come to a different conclusion, as the first state causes the next state in a series of iterations.

What? What a complete load of crap. If you send in 4 Thunderhawks against a braced 4 turret escort then half the time it'll be destroyed. Not one sixth of them time.

Offline skatingtortoise

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #1034 on: January 11, 2011, 11:43:28 AM »
Ok, I think I see where we're going: you're using frequency probability and treating the die as a 'fair coin'.  (In that the object and toss are mathematically perfect)

I'm using propensity theory to come to a different conclusion, as the first state causes the next state in a series of iterations.

What? What a complete load of crap. If you send in 4 Thunderhawks against a braced 4 turret escort then half the time it'll be destroyed. Not one sixth of them time.

i believe he has now moved onto justifying his position with 'the dice might be weighted'. if were not to assume that the dice are perfectly random, the use of statistical probability at all is pointless, leaving us back at square one. space marines dont need lances, necrons dont need ordnance, eldar dont need turrets.