1. my examples were not wrong. you must be confused. my 3 lunars shooting averaged 0.66 kills whereas the probability of each lunar shooting remain constant at ... what was it? 0.55555? maybe with the fourth time i shoot with the lunar i get a kill. now my average kill is 0.75 per lunar shooting whereas the probability for that lunar to kill remain same. how confusing this must be?
Probability Theory tells us both what the large-sample average is, AND what the likelyhood of each discreet result is. You are telling us to throw out Probability Theory because it didn't predict that the 3 Lunars could come up with 2 kills? But it did! And it tells us how likely that is! 4 Lunars scoring 3 kills? No problem!
4 Lunars could score a possible 16 hits, and Probability theory tells us exactly how likely each scenario is. If your Lunars had scored 17 hits on just 16 dice, even then that wouldn't discredit Probability Theory, we'd just have to examine our mathematical model. (hint: there's nothing wrong with the mathematical model).
2. again you are confused if you acknowledge that outcome is either zero or one (binomial) despite the probability varying from 0 to 100% (continuous) and some how think you are correct about how superior probability analysis is as compared to average. the same out come of "1" can arise whether the probability is 1% or 99% for any given event that has occur. as the probability remain the same, the average will change with increasing incidence to approach reality. probability is conceptual whereas averages are actual. certainly there is a relationship between probability and average. confounding is it?
You are using two different averages here. The average of the results so far obviously fluctuates depending on what the discreet outcomes were. But past outcomes are irrelevant, they don't change the likelyhood of what the next outcome will be (at least, they don't for things like tossing coins or rolling D6). You could flip a coin 10 times, and having it come up heads 10 tmes in a row, and tails would still be just as likely an outcome for the next flip as it was for the first.
When you argue: "4 Lunars can kill 3 Swords, so your average is wrong!", what you are actually saying is "My Lunars got one of many likely results, and I don't understand probability".
but you are trying the expand the application of the probability of 1 event to suggest that the probability of 100 is the same as the probability of 1 event. note probability for 100 separate events is not the same as the probability of 100 sequential events. misapplication. a game designer needs to know how things will play out over 100s, 1000s events. as a gamer you are really only interested in the next event.
when i suggested consider the two perspectives perhaps i should have been more explicit in stating the obvious, in that your perspective will dictate your reference point and what is significant. don't cling too tightly to just one perspective.
So what you are actually arguing, when it comes down to it, is that Probability Theory can't be expanded from one event to cover 1000s. It can. Already, we've demonstrated various different ways probability theory can be applied, from the outcome of 1D6, the outcome of multiple D6's as the shooting of a Lunar, Multiple Lunars, and what you'd expect from All Lunars shooting ever. Each time you say "It can't be done", we go "Yes it can, here's how you do it."
Meanwhile you're spouting drivel like "the likelyhood ("chance") of a Lunar killing an Eldar Escort is 1.16 or of killing a Sword is 0.83". You still haven't responded to my accusation that those figures are just *average hits*/*required hits*.
3. lets try the abstraction again. do try letting go of your shackles this time and do some deconstruction analysis.
ship targeting and tank targeting are neither relying on visual sighting at this time. a fair amount of it rely on counter fire target acquisition radar. thus neither should move up shoot, and hang there for a few, smoke a sig, pass it around, and wait for incoming because it certainly will come. you move, shoot, and move again so you are not where you where when incoming fire occurs. same with an infantryman. it isn't about being immune to retribution because both sides are doing it and both sides expect the others to do so.
then there is a lag time between recognizing a target and acquiring the target and then hitting the target. this effect is magnified in space because hey, distance is time, eh? over vast scale of distance with a moving target it really matters, you know?
Tank/Ships need that because they can't see over the horizon. Infantry genuinely can pop up and shoot and retreat before the other side can react (just). There is no horizon in space, a ship the size of those in BFG will still be easily discernable, even at the vast ranges battles are usually fought at. Over such distances, ships don't just *suddenly* appear, it takes hours to manouevre ships so big. The other side doesn't just hold fire and allow the eldar to breeze past like the wind - shots are going to be exchanged.
you make msm to be about pop out attack. it isn't. this is the shackle of your bias against eldar msm showing. silly.
i haven't say anything about how much a ship has to move before turning and how much of a turn they can even make in the second move. but lets say there is some limitation on the second move's minimum move before turning and how much it can turn. woah! i know i know a second concept to grasp. see? no pop-outs.
In the case where Eldar are prevented from popping down by restrictions to their 2nd move, they will be blown away because they haev tinfoil armour. That is not a fix.
In the case where the core mechanic is MSM, the game will play like dogfighters, not like battleships. I LIKE the core MS mechanic. It nicely represents kilometre-long warships ponderously coming about. If you'd rather play a different game, such as Aeronautica Imperialis, feel free.
