Night Shields effectiveness

aurynn wrote:

Interesting, I was actually bothered more that people thought that the difference is anywhere near 16,67%. :-D

That is an accurate representation of an aspect of the difference.
It all depends on what aspect you're tracking though.

So... The 16/17% difference... Shouldn't it be a 33% improvement?

A 4+ jink save is 50%. A 3+ is 67%. 67/50 = 1.33 or a 33% increase.

Also, a night shield on a standard 5+ cover would move it to a 4+. A difference of 50% over 33%. 50/33 = ~1.5 or a 50% increase in effectiveness.

My guess is a night shield on a Ravager could be a big deal as you can hide behind your other raiders for a 5+ and make it a 4+ without jinking or sacrificing firepower. The same shenanigans that were necessary in 3rd edition.

Yes that use with Raider-Wall is probably the only use. Although better than that is not relying on Ravagers. :-)

That percentage you talk about is an relative increase. But that does not mean that your vehicle will get 33% tougher as explained in the beginning and following posts of this thread.

It just seems that when using percentages they are relative by definition. Using 16.7 or 17% seems odd. And while the survivability won't actually go up by 30-50%, when discussing the shield it seems like the more appropriate method of review.

/shrug there was assessment earlier that touched on it depends on what unit to use. That seemed effective. If I have a major investment, 15 points more for a bit of protection is good. If I'm spamming a few units I could see not paying more.

There are two kinds of percentage definition - nominal and relative. 1 in 6 is 16,67% nominal chance - this percentage is not relative to anything else.

Relative percentage needs to relate to something - like increase from 4+ to 3+ is 33% increase relative to the original chance (50% increased to 66,67%). From 5+ to 4+ it is 50% relative increase (33,33% increased to 50%).

I don't disagree with your assessment, my comment on all of them being relative was related to percent being "per cent" or per 100. It just seems that using the 16-17% for discussion purposes seems a bit off. My two cents. Discussion has been interesting and I appreciate the points raised.