Played against New SM book..... Im done with DE for now.

mrbenis wrote:

I was trying to see if you can read. You failed. As you can plainly see, in that same post, without using the edit feature I demonstrated I can at the very minimum google probability outcomes on dice.

I still don't understand. I admit I'm not the best at maths, but I did go to school. The chance to make a charge over 10" is the probability of getting a double six (1/36) plus the probability of getting an eleven (2/36), which is 3/36, so your chances of failing are 33/36, i.e., 91.6%, right? And not 75% as you said?

And to fail a charge under 5" you would need to roll double ones, a three (1-2 or 2-1), or a four (1-3, 3-1, or 2-2). So... 1/36 + 2/36 + 3/36 equals 6/36, equals 1/6, which is 16.7% (ish), and not 25% as you said, despite what you may have googled?

Although, if you meant to say 'fail a charge AT 5"' (rather than 'under' 5"), it goes up to 10/36, or 27.8%, which is still not 25%, but you did say 'roughly'. So maybe that's what you meant?

When you google probabilities for results under X, don't include X itself. X is not below X, it's precisely at it.

Mushkilla wrote:

I'm not sure where you got the numbers 25% and 75% from.

I think I do. If you meant 'a charge under 6"' and 'a charge over 8"', it's close. You might start there, and realise halfway through that it doesn't really sell your point, decide to change it to 5" and 10", and forget to change it, because in this scenario you would be so consumed by anger that you couldn't think straight.

Ah the good old personal attack. If the arguments don't add up, just try the personal attack. Want to talk about my parents next?

Dude, I get what you want to say, random events with every event the same probability isn't good for planing. But my bell curve argument still stands.

Barking Agatha wrote:

Mushkilla wrote:

I'm not sure where you got the numbers 25% and 75% from.

I think I do. If you meant 'a charge under 6"' and 'a charge over 8"', it's close. You might start there, and realise halfway through that it doesn't really sell your point, decide to change it to 5" and 10", and forget to change it, because in this scenario you would be so consumed by anger that you couldn't think straight.

I rest my case.

Calyptra wrote:

How many of you have set up your army for a game and realized that your actual models, dated from the time you purchased them, are older than your opponent?

...

I was going to make a joke about some of my miniatures being old enough to vote, but then I did some math and realized I that I got my marine Terminators 25 years ago. I'm, um, gonna go. Drink. And yell at someone for being on my lawn. (I'm kidding, of course. I live in a city. We don't have lawns.)

I echo these thoughts - but I have lawn so am happy to yell at people for you Calyptra!

What's wrong with playing against kids? It's not that age matters anymore. My brother was totally upset when he didn't have to guess the artillery range anymore. So what? The age doesn't matter if they play one of the favorite codex and your codex sucks. But that's not news that the codex are imbalanced. I take the competition and pick up the fight anyway!

I think "children" was a poor choice of words.

Probably would have been better to say 'bad players', 'poor strategists' or something along those lines.

Calyptra wrote:

How many of you have set up your army for a game and realized that your actual models, dated from the time you purchased them, are older than your opponent?

...

I was going to make a joke about some of my miniatures being old enough to vote, but then I did some math and realized I that I got my marine Terminators 25 years ago. I'm, um, gonna go. Drink. And yell at someone for being on my lawn. (I'm kidding, of course. I live in a city. We don't have lawns.)

Calyptra- I salute you good sir.