fair enough I'm sold too.

I've been using the LR crusader without the MM for a while now, it's good. with the MM the crusader is worth much more that a normal LR, without it it makes them about the same.

_________________
"Dyslexia is a Privilege, not a right"

2x4+ is the obvious option when removing the MM.

Carried over from the other thread:



The issue we have isn't one that can be shown in batreps; it's a fluff and game mechanics issue, not just a balance one.

Quite.

On a purely mechanical level it works. As part of "Epic" it sticks out like a sore thumb.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Yes using 3 FF+5 but that's the same as 2 FF+4

_________________
"Dyslexia is a Privilege, not a right"

It's not, quite. On average it is, but approximately 4% of the time (chances of triple hit) it's better.

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

Math can be funny that way. You also have to take into account that there's a 25% chance of not getting any hits with 2x4+. But it's 29% for 3x5+. There's that pesky 4% difference.



Getting that "3 hits every 4%" chance comes from the other possibilities, and a bigger chance of the 0 Hits possibility. Singular circumstance might make it important, 4% of the time an assault will give you an advantage in a given situation. But in most other circumstances, you have a marginal penalty.

In the long run, those percentages actually hinder the 3x5+, in terms of long term gains. Assuming it's purely just comparative number of hits, 3x5+ wins 31.48% of the time, loses 33.33% of the time, and ties 35.18% of the time. It's an almost insignificant rounding, once you take all the other variables into account (saves, combat result roll) but that's the way it shakes out.

For those who want to check my math,
0 Successes = 64/216 = 0.296296296
1 Successes = 96/216 = 0.444444444
2 Successes = 48/216 = 0.222222222
3 Successes = 8/216 = 0.037037037

On rolling 0 successes, opponent (2x4+) has 25% chance of a tie, 75% chance of a win.
On rolling 1 successes, opponent (2x4+) has 25% chance of a win, 50% chance of a tie, 25% chance of a win.
On rolling 2 successes, opponent (2x4+) has 75% chance of a loss, 25% chance of a tie,.
On rolling 3 successes, opponent (2x4+) has 100% chance of a loss.

Win = (64/216*0/4) + (96/216*1/4) + (48/216*3/4) + (8/216*4/4)
Tie = (64/216*1/4) + (96/216*2/4) + (48/216*1/4) + (8/216*0/4)
Loss = (64/216*3/4) + (96/216*1/4) + (48/216*0/4) + (8/216*0/4)

Morgan Vening
- Wasn't sure how it'd all work out when he started the math.

4%? wow so bugger all difference then? We're not really quibbling over 4% are we?

morgan, i think your math only works in a 1 vs 1 situation without saving throws*, for the general situation (x vs y units, with total hits and saving throws being considered), it is better to compare the expected number of hits:

e(hits(3x5+)) = 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 1
e(hits(2x4+)) = 1/2 + 1/2 = 1

same long run number of hits, however, 3xFF5+ has greater variance (so is perhaps better suited to weapons that spray their fire, like an assault cannon)


(* the assumption that 3-0 is as good a result as 1-0, is not true in the general FF dust up)

_________________
Uti possidetis, ita possideatis.
May your beer be laid under an enchantment of surpassing excellence for seven years!
An online epic force creator: Armyforge

Been thinking about this some more. 2xFF4+ does get a slight advantage in the general case, this is because a certain number of FF hits are wasted (e.g. when a unit fails it save throw and has additional hits allocated). Since 3xFF5+ has greater variance, a unit of them is slightly more likely to get wasted hits. So 2xFF4+ will on average get slightly more kills, however the difference is tiny and diminishes as the size of units increases.

The trade off is that a unit of 3xFF5+ will very occasionally wipe-out a unit that 2xFF4+ could not achieve.

To recap...
* morgan's calculation assumes a unit size of 1, and that all hits after the first are wasted
* using the expectation is correct for all unit sizes but assumes no hits are wasted
* the correct comparison will vary depending on potential for wasted hits, but 2xFF4+ will enjoy a very slight advantage over 3xFF5+ (with Morgan's calculation illustrating the most extreme case)

Anyway I'm sure this is much more detail than anyone really cares about

_________________
Uti possidetis, ita possideatis.
May your beer be laid under an enchantment of surpassing excellence for seven years!
An online epic force creator: Armyforge

Yup. Your first response is more accurate though. Math is math is math. But nothing is more a hindrance than the knob doing it (Me!) drawing the wrong conclusion.

But yeah, over the entire course, it's so minute a difference, they can essentially be the same. It's a much smaller differentiation than the initial 4% claim. For all intents and purposes, the two sets of stats are identical.

Morgan Vening

To give the hornets nest of discussion on 2x4+ or 3x5+ a good whack do we want to take into consideration catching a defending unit in cover in a firefight.

In which case 3x5+ gets 0.49% of a hit and 2x4+ 0.66%.

I suggest we toss a coin for which one we use. Heads 2x4+, tails 3x5+, I'll let you know the result.

Er... cover doesn't modify firefight to hit values in any way.

Anyone used the Land Raider Redeemer yet?
Played 3 games in the Turney in Wolfsburg with using the Salamanders armylist. I included some generic Land Raiders instead of the Redeemers thinking that the AT firepower would beof more use forme. I was wrong. Even the single 30cm AP3+ IC shot (instead of two 15cm AP3+ IC shots) would be much more useful against the hordes of infantry in cover i encountered there*.
The playtest stats in the current Salamanders armylist had the Multi-melta too (but FF4+).

*Other Turney members where 2 x Imperial Guard, 1 x Steel Legion PDF, 1 x Ulthwé Eldar and 1 x Orks. I played against the Eldar and both Imperial Guard armies.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/