Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
Hi folks,
I threw together a table listing the odds of being wounded, depending on toughness, armour save, ward save and attack strength. It may be useful to tournament players putting together runic defenses.
http://www.warhammerstats.info/
Alf
Ahh, mathhammer. Makes me twitch every time. Looks like a lot of work went into this though.
Nice job mate, it does indeed look like a fair effort has gone into this. Unfortunately, in my cursory glance, I did spot one error.
Your chances to wound at S1 are all 0.00% everywhere, even against T3 and T4, which is obviously incorrect. It seems to just be the S1 column, and I picked out a couple of values in the S2 column and they appeared to be correct.
Also, not an error, but perhaps you could do tables for re-rollable saves. I'm not sure how many there are out there, perhaps it's just not worth it, but it would make the study more complete.
Definitely an interesting read I must say. Though I scorn theory hammer as meaningless in real time gaming I can see the potential of such a tool in planning lists.
Nice work
:C
spambot kill tally: 79
[16:19] <@Alzer> Arky's right though
[16:20] <@Kaiser-> I know he is.
[16:20] <@Kaiser-> He usually is.
[16:20] <@Kaiser-> Sometimes it's intentional.
----
[00:01] <+zubus> i love you, ya skirt wearin nothern monkey! ^_^
Definitely and interesting read and hopefully will prove valuable. I prefer to have Dwarf characters in my units if i'm going to try and pull off a frontal charge, unfortunatley that's really hard to figure out the math on.
40K-Beakies(9-14-4),Guard(4-7-2),Orks(34-12-11). FANTASY-Dwarves(15-6-7),Beasts (14-14-1), Skaven (17-17-10) DoC (6-1-2). CYGNAR (28-15-1)
Nice information. Mathhammer, I think, has some value. I remember listening to a report recently where a statistician talked about a lesson he uses in his class.
He instructs students to flip a coin one hundred times. If the coin lands on heads, they write a 1 on the board. If the coin lands on tails, they write a zero on the board. The result is a series of 1's and 0's 100 items in length.
Before they do this, though, they write down what they envision a random series of 1's and 0's on the board would be.
The professor, who has been outside the room, then reenters and can always determine the imagined versus the real results.
A true random sorting of the flips will see long stretches of 1's and 0's. He says this is true in other cases, too. The students' imagined series lacks these long stretches.
I speculate that players experience these games where the dice are abnormally good or bad, where combats don't go as expected, and remember those much more clearly than all the average combats.
I'm guessing that if players actually tracked the statistics for several games, they'd play out just as the statistics predict.
People learn that statistics can be slanted to support one view or another, as in politics, and then start to claim that all statistics are crap.
Of course, if there are problems with statistical models and such, that's another kettle of fish. But that's my take on it anyhow.
Painting Videos--My Warriors of Chaos--WHFB Tactica Index
*************************************************