|
|
Post by DarkGuard on May 29, 2012 20:30:26 GMT
DarkGuard: Curiously I could say the same thing, that you're curiously still not understanding how wound allocation works. Curious, isn't it, that I can read the rulebook the same as you and yet somehow disagree. Curious. Or sad. It's still cool to put people down by declaring that they make us sad by disagreeing with us, right? Well I'm sorry, but this is RAW, there is no interpretation. I'm not attempting to put you down, I'm attempting to help you understand how that rule works. The rule is spelt out clearly enough that it doesn't require interpretation, just understanding and following. I guess some people just don't want to learn, or rather, some people don't want to admit that they are wrong. Like it matters now anyway, 6th is coming out soon. |
|
|
|
Post by Jabberwocky on May 29, 2012 21:06:56 GMT
Nurglitch, if a particular model needs to stay alive, then surely it being unique makes it easier to keep alive? You can assign the most dangerous wounds elsewhere and maybe avoid wounds altogether.
The only instance where you'd be forced to risk losing it, would also risk wiping an entire brood of similar models.
Suffering 6 ID wounds with cover saves might let 1 model live. However the chances of a single model living are significantly lower in a simple brood than in a unique model brood. 1/16 compared to 37/64.
Edit: in fact a unique model in this case has a 1/4 chance of living. Better than any particular model in a simple unit!
I know I'd rather have the unit alive more often and just reposition it. I'd also prefer the massive advantages against damage in the majority of instances.
|
|
|
|
Post by coredump on May 30, 2012 5:22:58 GMT
Once again, Nurglitch, the more you type, the less you actually say.
I see in your first several paragraphs, you use a very roundabout way of saying you were wrong earlier. It would have been faster to just come out and admit you were wrong, but fine, either way.
OTOH, all I have asked for is a simple example. Thats it. Just give one *actual* example. Because I am saying that you are wrong. Your claims to not match reality This 'postional' advantage is basically poppycock. Your posts are full of assumptions and assertions, but very low on supporting evidence or examples.
I have asked, I don't know, at least several times for you to provide an actual, specific, concrete example. The one time you did, it showed that unique units were *much better* than homogeneous units.
And I think this is why you disdain actual examples, and why you dislike 'quote cutting'. Your method of posting lets you make claims without substantiating them, and allows you to drift off topic, and then just arrive at a conclusion at the end.
Why is it seemingly so difficult for you to come up with an actual example to support your assertions? Just one. Refrain from all of the 'it might' or 'could be' options. Just give one concrete example.
How many warriors, how does it get attacked, what units are around it, whatever.... then show why a homogeneous group would leave you in a better position. Just pretend something happened in a game, and report on it.
I will give you fair warning... the more contrived your example, and the more completely, unbelievabley unlikely it is... the less credible your claims will be. But even a contrived example is better than no example.
|
|
|
|
Post by getwisteerd on May 30, 2012 11:51:50 GMT
Well, I'm not going to claim homogeneous broods are better, but I can give an example where they have an advantage. Consider the following situation: GG___ABC GG is a unit of gargoyles, A, B and C are three warriors in cover (in one brood). The gargoyles are within 12" of warrior A, but not withing 12" of warrior B or C. Now the warriors take 4 ID wounds. In a unique unit, you'd assign two of them to either B or C, and 1 to both of the other two warriors. Odds of gargoyles keeping synapse: 1/2. In a homogeneous brood you take your saves first, if 0, 1 or 2 saves are failed, you can remove warrior C and/or B, and warrior A will survive. Warrior A only has to die if you fail 3 or 4 saves. Odds of this happening would be 5/16 if I'm not mistaken. So, the odds of the gargoyles keeping synapse would be 11/16. So, in this case, the warrior brood being three unique models reduces the odds of the gargoyles staying within synapse range. It is a rather specific example, but I do think this is pretty much what Nurglitch is thinking of. Anyway, back to lurking (it's my instinctive behaviour  ) |
|
|
|
Post by nurglitch on May 30, 2012 12:12:10 GMT
coredump:
Okay, I give up. You're not worth it.
DarkGuard:
Yes, I've pointed out that everyone plays it the way you think the rules should be read. I'm just pointing out that the rules don't actually read that way. Likewise, I agree it's problematic that you just refuse to admit you're wrong, but that's okay. It's hard to admit you're wrong when you're sure of being right.
getwisteerd:
Yup. That's exactly it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jabberwocky on May 30, 2012 12:22:16 GMT
Well, I'm not going to claim homogeneous broods are better, but I can give an example where they have an advantage. Consider the following situation: GG___ABC GG is a unit of gargoyles, A, B and C are three warriors in cover (in one brood). The gargoyles are within 12" of warrior A, but not withing 12" of warrior B or C. Now the warriors take 4 ID wounds. In a unique unit, you'd assign two of them to either B or C, and 1 to both of the other two warriors. Odds of gargoyles keeping synapse: 1/2. In a homogeneous brood you take your saves first, if 0, 1 or 2 saves are failed, you can remove warrior C and/or B, and warrior A will survive. Warrior A only has to die if you fail 3 or 4 saves. Odds of this happening would be 5/16 if I'm not mistaken. So, the odds of the gargoyles keeping synapse would be 11/16. So, in this case, the warrior brood being three unique models reduces the odds of the gargoyles staying within synapse range. It is a rather specific example, but I do think this is pretty much what Nurglitch is thinking of. Anyway, back to lurking (it's my instinctive behaviour ) Sorry but the odds for the unique unit in this example are 1/2 (saving 1 wound on that particular model). The simple unit has a 1/4 chance (saving 2+ of the wounds). |
|
|
|
Post by nurglitch on May 30, 2012 12:24:00 GMT
Jabberwocky:
Care to show your work?
|
|
|
|
Post by fnorrll on May 30, 2012 12:34:06 GMT
Heres a simple question:
Nurglitch and Coredump play a 2000 point game of Warhammer 40k, both playing as tyranids. For the sake of argument, we'll assume equal player skill. Nurglitch must follow all the current unit compsition rules. Coredump can equip his units however he chooses.
In this scenario, a simple question for both of you: Do you thin you would win given the above restrictions? I know this doesnt prove anything, I'm just curious.
|
|
|
|
Post by DarkGuard on May 30, 2012 13:30:47 GMT
DarkGuard: Yes, I've pointed out that everyone plays it the way you think the rules should be read. I'm just pointing out that the rules don't actually read that way. Likewise, I agree it's problematic that you just refuse to admit you're wrong, but that's okay. It's hard to admit you're wrong when you're sure of being right. That's a bit rich. Considering that you gave one out of context, out of sequence quote for your reasoning. I then gave two in context, in sequence quotes, including your one in its proper context, to explain why your reasoning was wrong, and then you completely ignored it. On many occasions on forums I've been wrong and directly held my hands up and admitted it. I know it's the internet but it's OK to admit fault. Admitting fault just means we're human. But why I am I bothering? Troll's gonna troll. |
|
|
|
Post by Jabberwocky on May 30, 2012 13:49:01 GMT
Jabberwocky: Care to show your work? Sure. Since it is quite simple. Simple unit: You need to save 2 out of those 4 ID wounds to only lose 2 models and keep that important one. 4+ cover save, so 1/2 x 1/2 for passing twice. 1/4 chance. Complex unit: Allocate 3 onto the unneeded 2. Allocate 1 onto the important one. One 4+ save, 1/2 chance of him living. |
|
|
|
Post by coredump on May 30, 2012 14:54:10 GMT
coredump: Okay, I give up. You're not worth it. BWAHAHAHAhahahaha..... Again, how *convenient* for you. You have persistently been pompous and condescending. You have accused me of "misunderstanding" the rules, and insinuated that I should start by considering what the rules state. Yet *you* are the one that has *repeatedly* made statements with *no* supporting evidence. You are unable to provide rules to back up your assertions. You are unable to provide examples to support your assertions. You continually change the topic, and ignore any rules or examples that prove you wrong. Of course I am not "worth it", because I deal in actual rules, actual probability, and actual concrete examples. I am not 'worth it' because I expect you to actually provide supporting information/evidence for your completely outlandish claims. I also point out the times when you flip flop on what you have said, yet refuse to admit you were ever wrong. Then you rely on arguing semantics to try and get out of it. Big Bad Coredump was 'quote cutting'... so you will refuse to take part.... So I stopped that, just to appease you, and *surprise!* you still refuse to provide any supporting information. Instead you turn tail and run away... because once someone makes you actually support your wild fabrications... they become 'not worth it'. Jabberwocky: Care to show your work? HUH??!!?? WH-WHAT??!?? You are the personification of Chutzpah! You spend entire threads avoiding 'showing your work'. You refuse to provide rules or other supporting evidence for your assertions. And you have the unmitigated audacity to want Jaberwocky to 'show his work'?? When have you ever bothered to show your work?? If you think Jabberwocky is wrong... prove it. I proved you wrong many times in this thread alone, yet you just ignore it and keep going..... You are becoming more and more of a joke to everyone else here... |
|
|
|
Post by coredump on May 30, 2012 17:38:23 GMT
Well, I'm not going to claim homogeneous broods are better, but I can give an example where they have an advantage. Consider the following situation: GG___ABC GG is a unit of gargoyles, A, B and C are three warriors in cover (in one brood). The gargoyles are within 12" of warrior A, but not withing 12" of warrior B or C. Now the warriors take 4 ID wounds. In a unique unit, you'd assign two of them to either B or C, and 1 to both of the other two warriors. Odds of gargoyles keeping synapse: 1/2. In a homogeneous brood you take your saves first, if 0, 1 or 2 saves are failed, you can remove warrior C and/or B, and warrior A will survive. Warrior A only has to die if you fail 3 or 4 saves. Odds of this happening would be 5/16 if I'm not mistaken. So, the odds of the gargoyles keeping synapse would be 11/16. So, in this case, the warrior brood being three unique models reduces the odds of the gargoyles staying within synapse range. It is a rather specific example, but I do think this is pretty much what Nurglitch is thinking of. Anyway, back to lurking (it's my instinctive behaviour ) Hey Get, welcome to The Hive. Hope you continue to fight your IB and stay involved. But lurking is cool too. I realize there are examples, I even stated so earlier. But the trick here is to get Nurglitch to actually come up with one. If you lurk in enough threads, you will see he refused to deal in any sort of specifics, runs from probability, avoids supporting evidence...etc. This way he can make whatever claims he wants, and claim they are true and valid. As seen in this thread, when he did finally give an example, it proved he was wrong... so he will avoid them at all costs. I realize I will never get past his arrogance, but I am really trying to get to lurkers like yourself, so you realize just how off base his 'theories' really are. He uses a lot of words, and lots of 'might' and 'maybe' so that is sounds plausible to newer players, or those not paying close attention. But thanks for the example. If you notice, you not only provided an example, but even provided the math to support it. And obviously Jabberwocky bothered to look it over and refuted it with math. Nurglitch is terrified of being shown to be wrong, so he will never provide such concrete information. If he stays vague, he gives himself wiggle room... As for your example, there are two things to consider. Can something happen? How likely is it to happen? And in this case, is it actually an applicable example. (IOW does it actually show an example of a homogeneous example.) In this case, it is a applicable example. (See Nurg, that wasn't that hard...I told you they existed.) So now the question is how likely is it to actually happen? And how likely is it to actually be a detriment? Even assuming you get into that situation... which does not seem overly likely, but reasonable. Now we need to see how likely it become detrimental: How likely is it to be hit with *exactly* the correct number of ID wounds and*nothing* else? To wit: even a single bolter wound means the unique group has a 100% chance of synapse surviving. Likewise, 2 or 5 ID wounds also gives the advantage to unique broods. Of those, only 58% of the time the gargs fail IB. Evenso, you are still more likely to have unique warrior models survive than homogeneous ones.To wit: Is it better to have 1warrior and gargs in synapse, or 2 warriors and gargs out of synapse. Remember, 42% of the time, gargs pass IB on their own. So as I hope you can see ( actually, I believe you knew this when you posted...) This example is a very contrived, highly unlikely scenario; compared to all of the ways that the unique broods would have a very clear, very reliable, advantage. |
|
|
|
Post by nurglitch on May 30, 2012 18:28:41 GMT
DarkGuard: Admitting fault isn't the issue. Determining the truth is the issue. This isn't something that one of us can win by proving the other person's opinion to be wrong. This is something where we need to establish common premises and methods of reasoning. You know, discussion. But sniping is cool too, since you're into that, troll.  Jabberwocky: Thank you. Nice to see someone else being constructive for a change. I had been thinking the same thing for the math. Which is why I wanted to see how you were handling it. After all, it seems pretty reasonable to start from the premise that, where the goal is to avoid losing the Synapse-anchoring model, the non-complex unit would need to make at least two saves. Because each failed saves would be allocated to each model in the non-complex unit. The advantage to the complex unit is that, by common practice, we allocate wounds prior to saves. Wounds are spread around to avoid removing whole models. However, I don't think we're comparing the outcomes properly. The complex unit can fail a single 4+ dice roll and lose Synapse, while the non-complex unit has to fail two 4+ dice rolls out of four to lose Synapse. The non-complex unit can lose a maximum of two, but they need to lose a minimum of two as well. So the comparison isn't 4+ on 1D6 vs 4+ on 2D6, but 4+ on 1D6 vs 4+ on 4D6. Given that the unit can lose two models, it only has to pass 2/4 of its saves, rather than as many as 2/2 as you suggest, in order to avoid losing the Synapse coverage. Losing Synapse coverage isn't so bad if the objects of that coverage are themselves Fearless, but in the case of the Tyranid heavy-lifting units such as Termagants, Hormagaunts, and Gargoyles it's nigh catastrophic since those units are Ld6. Likewise you can make up the risk to coverage by increasing the redundancy of your Synapse-providing units. |
|
|
|
Post by Jabberwocky on May 30, 2012 19:10:30 GMT
Nurglitch I think you have the math wrong sorry.
Edit: my math was wrong afterall! See my later post.
|
|
|
|
Post by nurglitch on May 30, 2012 19:31:22 GMT
Jabberwocky:
Why would you be sorry that I might have the math wrong? Is it your fault?
I'm figuring the odds of passing two saving throws as:
A1. =(3/6), or the chance of 4+ on 1D6
A2. =(1-A1)*A1, or the chance of a re-roll when A1 misses
A3. =sum(A1:A2), or the cumulative chance of 4+ with a re-roll
A4. =A3^2, =9/16, or the chance of two 4+ results on 4D6
Essentially I'm figuring that since the unit can take two wounds without losing Synapse, those saving throws for the other two models in the units act as re-rolls to the two saving throws needed to preserve the third member.
|
|
"
